Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, ofMr. SPEAKER from this day's sitting; Where upon Major MILNER, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords]

NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table,—Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Weston-super-Mare) Bill [Lords],

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Doncaster) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time tomorrow.

NORTH DEVON WATER BOARD BILL [Lords]

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.—(King's Consent signified.)

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the sustained public desire to attend Debates in the House of Commons, he will erect a temporary gallery at the South End of the present Chamber.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): No, Sir. I am advised that the work of

construction would be considerable; that it could only be carried out at some inconvenience to the proceedings of the House, and that the net gain in seats would be relatively small.

Sir W. Wakefield: Will the Minister reconsider this matter if I can bring to him evidence that will enable the provision of such accommodation as is proposed in this Question to overcome the difficulties he has mentioned?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am prepared to consider it.

Colonel Erroll: Is the Minister not aware that a satisfactory temporary Gallery could be constructed out of tubular steel scaffolding, to hold at least 80 people, without damaging the existing fabric? Would he agree to look into that matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think my original answer presupposes that possibility.

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when I put this Question to him a few months ago he said that the demand for seats in the Gallery would possibly be falling off. Is he still of that opinion, may I ask?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think there is a chance yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS (REQUISITIONED PREMISES)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Minister of Works what other premises have been taken over by his Ministry in the course of vacating the London University building; and for what period these premises have been acquired.

Mr. Tomlinson: No additional premises have been taken over to enable the London University building to be vacated. The staffs are being rehoused in premises already at the disposal of my Ministry.

Sir Harold Webbe: asked the Minister of Works how many square feet of office space are under requisition at the address in Westminster, of which he has been informed; by what Departments they are occupied; and what was the average number of staff employed there for each of the last three months.

Mr. Tomlinson: In the building in question, which consists of two blocks, my Department holds a total of 332,050 feet super, 274,350 of which are held on requisition and the remainder on lease. The whole of the space is occupied by the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the staffs employed there numbered approximately 3,390 in August, 3,230 in September and 3,130 in October.

Sir H. Webbe: Is the Minister aware that that rate of occupancy is still less than three-quarters of what is normal in commercial practice? Will he stop this waste of office space?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will do my best, and am doing so constantly, but one cannot move somebody in more quickly than somebody else moves out.

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Aircraft Production signified their intention of giving up at least one floor of that building to the owners, and were told that another Department proposed to take it over? Will the Minister see that when a Department gives up space it will be returned to the owners?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have not got that information.

Sir P. Macdonald: Ask the Minister of Aircraft Production.

Sir H. Webbe: asked the Minister of Works how many flats at the address in Westminster, of which he has been informed, are under requisition for office purposes; and how soon it is proposed to make these flats available for civilian accommodation.

Mr. Tomlinson: Sixty-one flats are held on requisition at the address referred to. The staffs now in occupation are shortly to be removed and it is anticipated that the flats will be transferred to the Ministry of Health for housing purposes soon after the end of this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — VICTORIA TOWER GARDENS (CLOSING HOUR)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Works why the Victoria Tower Gardens, which used to be left open to the public, are now closed at 5·30.

Mr. Tomlinson: The gardens were left open during the war to provide access to

the emergency water supply in the static water tank. Access had also to be available to Royal Air Force personnel manning the balloon barrage on the site. Such access being no longer necessary, the pre-war practice of closing the gardens at dusk has been reintroduced.

Mr. Spearman: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why they should not be left open now? Is he aware that it is the practice of some local residents to exercise their dogs in the evening?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Concrete Bricks (Germany)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Works whether he will arrange for investigations to be made into the scheme for building houses, recently demonstrated at the H.Q. Military Government in Germany, where special concrete bricks are employed which can be assembled by unskilled labour in which it is possible to produce a two-family house costing less than £340 to build, complete with fittings.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have no official knowledge of this demonstration, but I am making inquiries through the Control Commission.

Building Workers, London

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Works what progress has been made respecting the grievances of bomb-repair workers and building operatives in the London area; and approximately, the amount of working time lost during the past three months for illness and for other causes.

Mr. Tomlinson: The settlement of these grievances is a matter for the industry itself. Negotiations on a claim by the operatives for an increase in the agreed rates of wages are at present taking place between the organisations of employers and operatives on the National Joint Council for the Building Industry. Information is not available as to the total amount of working time lost in London during the past three months.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the Minister say when, approximately, a conclusion will be reached in these negotiations, in view of the wastage of manpower that has already taken place?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, but I am informed that the negotiations are being speeded up.

Brick Industry (Labour)

Mr. Lavers: asked the Minister of Labour if, to prevent a hold up of the housing plans of the Government, he will make arrangements for suitable labour to be supplied to brick manufacturers on the North-East coast to enable closed brickyards to be reopened.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am aware of the importance of the brick industry and every effort is being made to provide the labour which it needs. Arrangements have been made to encourage the return of brickyard workers from oher industries, and releases are also being made under Class B.

Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister also see that this applies to the whole of the country, as bricks are used all over the country, as well as in the North-East?

Mr. Isaacs: Sometimes they are dropped in this House, too, but the answer does apply to the whole of the country.

Mr. Leslie: Is the Minister aware that the bricks made in the North are much better than the bricks made down here?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON RAILINGS (REPLACEMENT)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Works whether any further consideration has been given to the responsibility of the Government in replacing iron railings, or in meeting the heavy burden replacement will impose on individuals and public bodies.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. The Government does not propose to accept any general responsibility for the replacement of railings collected for war purposes, for to make any contribution in addition to the compensation payable, to cover the cost of any railings that owners or occupiers of land may decide to replace.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that the compensation paid was completely ridiculous and out of all proportion to the actual cost of replacement, and would he not see that the matter is reconsidered?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am afraid it is not for me to reconsider:

Mr. Stokes: As the Minister's answer has indicated a negative resistance to the replacement of iron railings, will he indicate what positive steps the Government will take to prevent the replacement of any iron railings?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is it fair that one section of the community should have to bear this expense? Why can it not be spread over the whole community?

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Oil, Great Britain (Development)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a comprehensive statement on the development and exploitation of oil fields in these islands, and whether geological surveys indicate that these can be substantially increased.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): As the answer has to be long and contains some figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Since the passing of the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1934, 191 prospecting licences have been issued covering in the aggregate an area of 30,000 square miles; 80 of these licences covering 12,800 square miles are still in force and two mining licences are in preparation. Applications for a number of new prospecting licences are under consideration.

The early searches proved disappointing but between 1939 and 1943 three small fields were discovered in Nottinghamshire. The output from these, and from smaller previous discoveries in Midlothian and Lancashire, rose to more than 100,000 tons in 1943. Production has since declined and is now running at about 70,000 tons a year. The oil is of good quality and the fields now being worked are expected to yield for some years, though at a diminishing rate. From 1939, when the first discovery under the 1934 legislation was made, until the present time, about 400,000 tons of crude oil have been won.

The extensive oil surveys and borings which have been carried out during the last ten years have provided valuable information about the geology and


mineral resources in the sub-soil. So far as oil prospects are concerned, there is a reasonable expectation that further producing structures may be found. The possibilities cannot however be proved until tested by drilling.

Electricity Supplies

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will arrange for the existing electricity cable to the village of Weeting, Norfolk, to be used to supply the new council houses about to be erected and also other houses in the village pending some agreement with the Ministry of Labour who have some interest in this supply cable.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand that the East Anglian Electricity Supply Company are prepared to tap this electric cable to afford supplies to the houses referred to if satisfactory arrangements can be made with the War Office who are the owners of the line. I have taken the matter up with the War Office and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Is the Minister aware that the other houses in this Question are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Works, and that the cable company sent a letter six months ago, and have had no reply?

Mr. Shinwell: I would like to see that question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Cook: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the peak load requirements in the country of electric power and the peak load supplies available.

Mr. Shinwell: It is estimated that the peak load on the national grid system during the coming winter will be between 8,500,000 and 9,000,000 kilowatts, according to weather conditions. The available output capacity of the generating; plant is not likely to exceed 8,600,000 kilowatts.

Mr. Cook: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the peak load requirements in Scotland of electric power and the peak load supplies available.

Mr. Shinwell: It is estimated that the peak load on that portion of the national grid system which is in Scotland during

the coming winter will be between 775,000 and 825,000 kilowatts according to weather conditions. The available output capacity of the generating plant is not likely to exceed 790,000 kilowatts. It should be observed, however, that the national grid system is operated as one unit over the whole country and it is not always possible, therefore, to treat separately supplies in Scotland.

Mr. Cook: Could the Minister tell us just what he means by "weather conditions"?

Mr. Shinwell: I should have thought that the term was quite familiar to every hon. Member.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that electric power is supplied to R.A.F. stations and military establishments in remote rural areas, but that farms and dwelling-houses in such neighbourhoods are commonly without electricity; and if, as these establishments and camps become redundant, he will take steps to secure the electric plant and equipment that have been required hitherto for military purposes and use them for the speediest possible general electrification of the countryside.

Mr. Shinwell: I agree that wherever practicable electric plant and equipment hitherto required for military purposes should be used for the development of rural supplies. It has been arranged that Service Departments will notify the Electricity Commissioners of any cases where the local undertaking concerned does not wish to take them over. The Commissioners do everything possible to promote the use of this equipment for civilian purposes.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a cottage in my constituency where the Air Force, greatly to the embarrassment of the inhabitants, have installed a red lamp actually on the roof—a red landing light—while inside the cottage the inhabitants still have only paraffin lamps? Will he use every endeavour to expedite this matter?

Mr. Shinwell: I should prefer to see particulars of that specific instance, so that I can bring it to the notice of the appropriate authorities.

Petrol (Private Aircraft)

Mr. Max Aitken: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will issue a ration of petrol to owners of private air craft after 1st January.

Mr. Shinwell: I am considering whether the supply position will enable this to be done.

Major Peter Roberts: Would the Minister, if he is considering the question in relation to aircraft, also consider giving an increase in the allowance to members of the Forces who are returning to this country and who want to start up commercial travelling?

Mr. Shinwell: That question is quite different, and should be on the Paper.

Kerosene (Rural Areas)

Mr. J. J. Robertson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is in a position to make some increase in the present ration of kerosene for domestic use in rural areas, particularly in Scotland, where during the winter period, the present ration is proving inadequate for lighting purposes.

Mr. Shinwell: I regret that the present supply position does not permit of an increase in the allocations of kerosene at present made to dealers. The position of persons solely dependent upon this fuel for essential domestic needs is, however, safeguarded by a scheme introduced in 1943, under which dealers give priority of supply to such consumers, up to the quantities authorised by my Department. The scales for consumers allowed under the scheme are adequate, and dealers are always enabled to meet the requirements of their priority customers. My Department has received virtually no complaints regarding the adequacy of the priority allocations during the last two years.

Mr. Butcher: Are we to understand that consumers in rural areas are receiving no more in 1945 than they were receiving in 1943?

Mr. Shinwell: I did not say that. What I said was that we have had very few complaints about shortage.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Northern Ireland

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is now in a posi-

tion to increase the allocation of coal to Northern Ireland where the supply granted is wholly inadequate to meet the ordinary needs of householders.

Mr. Shinwell: The allocation for Northern Ireland is agreed with the Northern Ireland Government, and is on a basis designed to secure equality of treatment between consumers there and in this country. The coal available to meet the allocation is shared as fairly as possible, and I regret that it is not possible to increase supplies at present. As output, improves, however, consumers in Northern Ireland will benefit along with consumers in this country.

Dr. Little: Will the Minister have an investigation made into the coal problem facing householders in Ulster who are not getting their fair share?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not think it is worth while having an investigation into the matter, but if the hon. Gentleman brings specific instances of shortage and inequitable distribution, I will certainly do so.

Sir Ronald Ross: Is the Minister aware that practically all the coke in the country has to be used to keep the Gibraltarians warm, and will he not make representations to the Secretary of State for the Colonies?

Mr. Shinwell: I would like to be certain about the facts before making any representations.

Mr. Stokes: When considering this matter, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the far greater contribution made to the war effort by the citizens of Eire, and will he see that their needs are met?

Sir R. Ross: The hon. Gentleman had better be sure of his facts.

Mr. Shinwell: We are endeavouring to allocate supplies to Eire—

Hon. Members: Why?

Miners (Working Week)

Major P. Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether in view of the desire of a large number of miners and the increased efficiency and output which will result, he will authorise a five-day week to be operated in the pits which so wish it, allowing the week-end for the preparation of the pit for the next week's working.

Mr. Shinwell: The whole question of a five-day week is now being carefully examined by my Department in relation to the efficiency of the industry and the well-being of the workers.

Major Roberts: When the Minister is going into this matter, will he take into consideration the saving in cost and thereby the reduction in price from which the consumer will benefit?

Mr. Shinwell: Certainly.

Output Target

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the 8,000,000 tons additional output of coal, for which he has asked in the six months beginning 1st November, is 8,000,000 tons more than was produced in the corresponding period of 1944 and 1945; and, if not, what is the quantity on which the increase asked for is based.

Mr. Shinwell: The 8,000,000 ton target is additional to the estimate of 87,000,000 tons for the six months November, 1945, to April, 1946, which was made at the beginning of the coal year.

Sir W. Smithers: In future when the Minister is making these communications to the public will he be more explicit and more honest—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Shinwell: I have tried to give the public as much information as I could in the circumstances, and, of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, if any hon. Member wants information I am only too glad to furnish it.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister tell us what is the response to his appeal?

Mr. Shinwell: We began the campaign only last week, at the beginning of November, and it is too early to judge—I am hoping for the best—but I would remind hon. Members that I am operating with dwindling manpower. The manpower this time last year was 714,000. At present it is 699,000. In spite of the dwindling manpower, there has been a slight increase in output.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is it not also a fact that there has been an appreciable decline in the output per manshift?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong. In fact, there has been an appreciable increase in the output per manshift.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the appreciable increase?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, I would be glad to do so, as hon. Members are rightly interested in this matter. The increase in output per manshift has gone up in the last six weeks from 1·01 to 1·03.

Miners (Class B Releases)

Colonel Erroll: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent the quota of Class B releases allotted to his Ministry has not been completely filled by coalminers in the Forces accepting Class B release.

Mr. Shinwell: The Service Departments are in process of offering release in Class B to all ex-underground workers for whom productive work is known to be immediately available, and I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service with a view to expediting this process.

Colonel Erroll: Would the Minister please answer the Question, and say whether this quota has been fully taken up or not?

Mr. Shinwell: So far as is practicable.

Output Figures (Publication)

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now restore the prewar practice of issuing out put figures and other key statistics at weekly intervals instead of monthly intervals, in view of the fact that such announcements were made weekly in the "Board of Trade Journal" before the war.

Mr. Shinwell: The weekly figures issued before the war were in the nature of commercial intelligence which is not required in existing circumstances. In view of the inevitable fluctuations in short periods, I consider that the publication of these figures at weekly intervals would be misleading.

Colonel Clarke: Is it not a fact that these figures are available in the Ministry and that they could be disseminated with very little trouble? In view of the great desire in the country for this information, ought it not to be given?

Mr. Shinwell: For the reason that I have given, it is undesirable. The figures are misleading if given from week to week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the reason I have given, it is undesirable, and when hon. Members see the monthly figures which are now being presented, they will see that an accurate picture is given of all the facts relating to the work of the Department.

Major P. Roberts: Does the Minister wish to make comparisons with prewar years as difficult as possible?

Mr. Shinwell: Not at all. There is no reason why we should make these comparisons unless they are related to output and are of some value.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL. (VOCATIONAL TRAINING)

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider adopting a vocational training scheme for able-bodied ex-Servicemen, the training to be undertaken in actual factories and workshops.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am sending the hon. Member the leaflet which explains the Vocational Training Scheme for ex-Servicemen. The Scheme provides for training in employers' establishments where this is the most effective method.

Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that many trades are not covered by this vocational training system, and can be say how the employer makes arrangements for the training of men in his own works?

Mr. Isaacs: That is rather another question which covers a wider field. I would be glad to give the information, but I know a number of instances where the training is entirely in the works, and others partly in educational establishments and also partly in the works.

Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that I have contacted his Regional Officer on this very point, and that he is not able to give me the information for which I have asked?

Mr. Isaacs: No, I was not aware of that. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to communicate with me

direct or see me afterwards, I will do what I can to help.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENGINEERING INDUSTRY, SLOUGH (REPORT)

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Amalgamated Engineering Union Redundancy and Employment Sub-Committee, published by the Slough Trades Council, of which a copy has been sent to him, in which charges are made of collusion between local employers and officials of his Ministry to the detriment of the interests and rights of engineering employees; and whether he will hold an inquiry into these charges.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I am aware of this report and of the charges of collusion contained in it which are unfounded. The report was published in full in the "Slough Observer"on 5th October. An interview with the chairman of the District Man Power Board in Reading, in which he dealt with the charges in detail, was subsequently published in that newspaper on 19th October. Later the chairman of the Man Power Board and the Manager of the Slough Employment Exchange had a full discussion with representatives of the local bodies responsible for publication of the original report, and following this an agreed statement appeared in the "Slough Observer" on 2nd November. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member the relevant Press reports, from which he will see that the charges made in the original report arose from a misunderstanding of the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR WORKERS (RELEASE)

Major Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour how many war-workers in Kingston, Surbiton and Maiden have been released by the Supply Departments for civilian production since 23rd August, 1945.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that this information is not in the possession of my Department.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: As the right hon. Gentleman said three weeks ago in response to a question from an hon.


Member opposite that he could give, the figures for Birmingham, may I ask why he cannot give them for much smaller boroughs?

Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry. I do not recall the incident to which the hon. and gallant Member refers; but if we have adopted the practice of giving figures for one area, obviously we cannot deny them to other areas. I will look into the matter again.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT NAVY (POLISH PERSONNEL)

. Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Labour whether any arrangements have yet been made whereby Polish officers and men of the Polish Mercantile Navy who do not wish to return to Poland may obtain employment in this country or sign on in ships flying the British Flag.

Mr. Isaacs: This matter has now been discussed in consultation with my right hon. Friends, the Home Secretary and the Minister of War Transport. The Home Secretary, I understand, proposes in suitable cases to vary the conditions on which the officers and men have been given leave to land, so as to permit them to take temporary shore employment of such kinds as may be approved by my Department. As regards the last part of the Question, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport that there are no vacancies in British ships to which Polish officers and men can be appointed.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that it is now some four months since this matter was raised and that very few of these people have had permission to land? A large number of them have landed, and will the right hon. Gentleman take steps now to deal with these people, who are without means of subsistence? A large number of them married English wives. They feel that they have been let down by the promises that were given.

Mr. Isaacs: The question of permission to land does not fall within the responsibility of my Department.

Mr. Stokes: I know, but will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for these people to take employment? Many people would give them employment if

the right hon. Gentleman would give permission.

Mr. Isaacs: After they have landed, the question of employment will be dealt with by my Department.

Mr. Stokes: They have landed, for about four months some of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION

Volunteers (Northern Ireland)

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give favourable consideration to the claims for early release of volunteer members of His Majesty's Forces from Northern Ireland who joined for the duration of the war.

Mr. Issacs: I would refer the hon.Member to the reply I gave hime to a similiar Questions on 10th October.

Dr.Little: Does not the Minister recongnise that these men were volunteers for the duration of the war and that, the war being over, they should receive special consideration?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to look at the reply to which I have referred him, he will see that these men are given exceptional facilities, equal to those of other men in a similar class in this country.

Sir R. Ross: Could not the right hon. Gentleman grant release in cases where there is a recommendation for release from the appropriate Department of the Northern Ireland Government, who are in closer touch with the situation than is the right hon. Gentleman's own Department?

Mr. Isaacs: That is rather another question, but I may say that I have had contact with the Department in Northern Ireland, and that, where we can, we have co-operated with each other.

Students

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Labour if he will agree to extend the Class B release scheme to include articled law students, many of whom are external students of universities and desire to continue their studies.

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the desirability of releasing articled clerks and other professional students whose course of training has been interrupted by the war and who are now urgently wanted by their employers for work of national importance.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) on 23rd October, a copy of which I am sending them.

Mr. P. Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the impending shortage of planners, architects and assistants required for the new housing drive and the long training necessary for this profession, he will consider re leasing students of the Royal Institute of British Architects who have already qualified in their intermediate examinations on equal terms with those holding arts scholarships.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The special arrangements for the release of certain art students were based upon the immediate need in the national interest of reviving arts courses at universities.

Mr. Bossom: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in answer to a question, he said that one architect was necessary for every 150 operatives, and that there are not enough architects to satisfy that proportion? Will he look into the matter and release enough of them to do the job?

Mr. Isaacs: That is rather another question, but I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Member that we are keenly aware of the problem, and that in various ways we have done what we can to meet the position.

An Hon. Member: Not much.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that while Class B provides for the release of students who, before joining the Forces, had not graduated and also of fully trained teachers, it does not provide for the intermediate class, namely, students who had graduated but had not completed the year at training college which is compulsory in a teacher's training; and if he will take steps to apply Class B to the last-mentioned class.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education on 8th November to the hon. Member for S.W. St. Pancras (Mr. H. Davies), a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the shortage of teachers does not the Minister of Labour think that something should be done to speed up their discharge?

Mr. Isaacs: My hon. Friend is asking me for an expression of opinion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you got one?"] I am not going to give it.

Period of Service (Civil Employment)

Mr. H. Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour why it is that the time served by a man who was directed to, and served in, the Air Ministry from July, 1940, until he was commissioned in the R.A.F. in1942 does not count in determining his release group and as a result his release is delayed; and if he will take steps to rectify this.

Mr. Isaacs: Periods in civilian employment before enlistment in the Armed Forces do not count in determining the order of release from the Forces.

Volunteers (South and Central America)

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make any statement about the release of volunteers from South and Central American countries who have been serving in His Majesty's Forces and who are required in South and Central America to further our trade interests in those countries.

Mr. Isaacs: Volunteers from South and Central America will in general be released, like other members of the Armed Forces, in order of age and length of service. If, however, a particular individual is a key specialist urgently required to further our trade interests in those countries, it is open to his employer, or, if he is in business on his own account, to the man himself, to apply through the appropriate Government Department in this country, for his release as an individual specialist in Class B.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he can tell us


who would be the appropriate person to whom an employer, who would be living in South America, should apply? Would it be the Ambassador or a particular Department in this country? That is what I wanted to get at.

Mr. Isaacs: I was not clear that that was what the hon. and gallant Member meant.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: I asked the Question three weeks ago.

Mr. Isaacs: There seems to have been a mistake, and if the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to have a word with me I will try to straighten matters out.

Oral Answers to Questions — V.A.D.

Captain Crowder: asked the Minister of Labour whether members of the V.A.D. released in Class A of the demobilisation scheme will still be subject to direction by his Ministry.

Mr. Issaacs: The position of these women is the same as described in the reply which I gave on 8th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), to which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member.

Captain Crowder: Will the Minister say when he intends to withdraw his powers of directing women? Surely he is not going to keep them for ever.

Mr. Isaacs: I agree that this will not go on for ever, but I would not like to say at the moment when they can be terminated.

Wing-Commander Millington: Is the Minister aware that the scheme for release of V.A.D. nurses is not yet known to the nurses themselves? Many Members frequently get letters from V.A.D.'s who think they have been let down. Will the Minister take steps to make this scheme known?

Mr. Isaacs: We hoped that the information would be issued and spread out from the V.A.D. Departments of the Services.

Oral Answers to Questions — Mine Ballotees

Colonel Sroddart-Scott: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a boy who was discharged on medical grounds after 14 months' service in the coalmines, has now been called up into

the R.A.F. and has been informed that this first 14 months of national service will not be counted in arriving at his age and service group; and as, if he had been able to stay in the pit, this service would have counted towards his demobilisation, will be consider this anomaly and prevent his service in the R.A.F. from delaying his demobilisation by 14 months.

Mr. Isaacs: The question whether pre-enlistment employment in coalmining may count for the purpose of release from the Forces, in the case of ballotees, is already under consideration, and I hope to make an announcement in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — Class A Releases

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to announce the numbers of the men in the three Services to be released under Class A during this quarter and the January to June period, conforming with the totals the affected groups contain.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. It is not possible to say in advance how many men in a particular age and service group will be released in Class A. This depends on such factors as the number in the group who will be released in Class B or on compassionate grounds, the number discharged on medical or other grounds and the number who volunteer for further service.

Oral Answers to Questions — Transport

Brigadier Low: asked the Minister of Labour whether, as a result of the latest appreciation of the availability of all types of transport, he will announce any speed-up in Class A releases in the early months of 1946.

Mr. Isaacs: I have nothing to add at present to the Statement I made on 2nd October about releases from the Forces.

Brigadier Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, in view of the figures given to me by his right hon. Friend about transport being used by the Services from the Far East, that all available transport has been asked for for the early months of next year?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not aware of the figures which the hon. and gallant Member says he has had from my colleague, but I am quite satisfied that the Ministry of War Transport and the other Departments


are co-operating very fully in the provision of transport to bring the men home.

Oral Answers to Questions — STAGGERED HOLIDAYS

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the Report of the Catering Wages Commission urging a spread-over of holidays from June to September; and what steps he proposes to take to implement its Recommendations.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to his previous Question on this subject on 8th November.

Wing-Commander Robinson: In view of the urgency of the situation, as shown in this Report, will not the Minister expedite consideration of this matter so that holiday resorts may prepare to meet the needs of the people during the coming season?

Mr. Isaacs: It is not the Minister's consideration that needs to be expedited. We have referred the matter to the industry for their consideration, and we are waiting for their observations.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not diametrically opposed to Conservative principles to ask for further controls?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (STUDENTS)

Lieut.-Colonel Price-White: asked the Minister of Labour for what reason it was decided that in return for increasing this year the proportion of art students of the Joint Recruiting Board age who may take up university studies, the quota of science students of that age to be admitted must be reduced by the same pro-portion; and whether, in view of the importance of increasing the scientific manpower of this country, he will abolish at the earliest opportunity this additional restriction on the intake into universities of science students.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) on 1st November, a copy of which I am sending him.

Lieut.-Colonel Price-White: While I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask whether he will agree— if I send cases to him showing that vacancies have remained unfilled because of the Regulations— to fill up those vacancies with students who are available but who were refused admission because of the Regulations?

Mr. Isaacs: I could not go further than to agree that such cases will be given sympathetic consideration, if the hon. and gallant Member will send them on to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED KINGDOM COMMERCIAL CORPORATION

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the extent to which the functions of the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation operate in the interests of British export trade; and if the activities of the corporation are to be continued in the future.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): The Corporation has done an excellent wartime job, in the course of which it has been able to help exporters, particularly to the Middle East, in the allocation of shipping space, and has made available certain guarantee facilities on exports to Turkey. I anticipate that the future activities of the Corporation will gradually diminish.

Sir P. Hannon: Would not the Chancellor consider the propriety of maintaining a little longer this organisation whose work in the past has been so appreciated?

Mr. Dalton: The President of the Board of Trade and I are jointly interested in this matter. We do not think this is likely to be a suitable permanent trading organisation, but we consider that it still has some useful duties to perform, and that is why I say that we thought its future activities would greatly diminish.

Mr. Boothby: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind the undesirability of establishing permanently anything in the nature of a monopoly in this sphere?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Marriage Bar

Viscountess Davidson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to announce the findings of the Committee set up during the first half of this year to consider the abolition of the marriage bar in the Civil Service.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir; but I have asked the Committee to hasten its report.

Examinations

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in connection with the special examination for the reconstruction competition for recruitment to the clerical classes of the Civil Service available to ex-Regular soldiers with over 12 years' Colour service, and in possession of a first-class Army certificate of education, he will consider applications from men who are only able to obtain a second-class certificate of education, in view of the fact that during the war examinations to obtain the certificate have not been held; since otherwise it will be impossible for the great majority of ex-Regular soldiers to take advantage of this concession.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I realise that during the war it has not been possible for the great majority of Regular soldiers to obtain either the first-class or the second-class certificate of education. But intending candidates for the Civil Service clerical competition can take the Forces Preliminary examination which is now being held, and a pass in that will be accepted as showing the necessary educational standard.

Conscientious Objectors

Captain Gammans: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if conscientious objectors will enjoy the same opportunities of obtaining posts in the Civil Service as serving soldiers during the immediate post war period.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Conscientious objectors will, if otherwise eligible, be able to compete in the Civil Service reconstruction examinations. Unless they have served in the Armed Forces, the corresponding Women's Services, the Merchant Navy or the Mercantile Marine, however,

they will not, of course, be eligible for places in the minimum quotas of vacancies which are reserved for members of those Services.

Captain Gammans: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what all that means? Will he say whether or not a conscientious objector, who has done nothing whatever to help us to win the war, is to be treated in the same way as an ex-soldier?

Mr. Hall: I think my answer was quite plain. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read it in Hansard tomorrow, and then if he still finds difficulty in discovering what the situation is, and will see me, I will do everything I can to enlighten him.

Wing-Commander Millington: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will give considerable satisfaction as an expression of the fairmindedness of the Government towards this much maligned group of men?

NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the present opportunity for British piano manufacturers to secure world markets previously served by German firms, he will remove the purchase tax on pianos forthwith.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Purchase Tax is not payable on exported pianos. As regards those sold at home, I cannot add to the statement on Purchase Tax which I made on 31st October.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will not the right hon. Gentleman realise that unless there is a home market in pianos the export market must bear the whole of the overheads, and it cannot do that?

Mr. Dalton: I have said before that our exporters can sell as much as they can produce at good prices in the next few years, and I hope they will get on with the job.

Mr. House: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that British homes need pianos too?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, but that was not the point in the Question, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer also requires a bit of revenue.

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider abolishing the Purchase Tax charged on the statutory forms necessary for matters connected with the certification and detention of insane persons.

Mr. Dalton: I regret that I cannot adopt the hon. Members suggestion. All stationery is chargeable with Purchase Tax and I could not make exceptions of this kind.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Chancellor expecting a gradual increase in the revenue from this source, due to the actions, present and proposed, of the present Government?

Mr. Dalton: I think it will probably run at a pretty steady level.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Chancellor consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply with a view to stopping the supply of paper to insane persons?

National Income

Mr. Spearman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to obtain the statistical and financial material necessary to assess the national income so that changes in economic activity can be foreseen in time to prevent fluctuations in employment after the present transition period.

Mr. Dalton: All the Departments concerned have been charged with the duty of providing the necessary statistics, which will be considered as a whole by H.M. Treasury and the Economic Section of the Cabinet Secretariat.

Canada and France (United Kingdom Indebtedness)

Colonel Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the extent of our present financial indebtedness to Canada and how this compares with our indebtedness to France.

Mr. Dalton: Our indebtedness to France is nil and to Canada 561,000,000 Canadian dollars, plus some claims arising out of the war which have not yet been determined.

Colonel Erroll: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Departments concerned to bear this disparity of debts in mind when

carrying out negotiations with the two Governments concerned?

Sir W. Smithers: Could the right hon. Gentleman also say what is the amount of the free gifts made to us by Canada to help us win the war?

Mr. Dalton: I think it is very widely known that the Canadian Government have behaved with the most splendid generosity throughout the war, not only shedding blood but giving great treasure for the common cause. This is so well known that I did not think it was necessary for me to repeat it.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the amount?

Mr. Dalton: If the Question is put down, I will.

Anonymous Gifts

Mr. King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received the draft sent to him by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. King) for £565 representing a parcel of £1notes which that Member received from a constituent, anonymously, in order to help balance the Budget; and whether he will take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of His Majesty's Government to so generous a donor.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir; and I should like to express the warm thanks of His Majesty's Government to this generous donor for his patriotic action, and also to all those other anonymous donors who have made similar gifts to the nation.

Mr. King: Is the Chancellor aware that this is evidence of a most concrete kind of a new spirit of co-operation and unselfishness which has appeared since the victory of the Labour Party?

Mr. Dalton: I should be very glad so to regard it.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Chancellor take the opportunity afforded by this gift of making a statement that if the others do not hand up their money, it will be taken from them?

Bank Deposits

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent bank deposits, owing to the reduction of the maximum rate of deposit interest from


1 per cent. to 1½ per cent., are being transferred to the Post Office Savings Bank; and with a view to attracting bank deposits into long-term Government loans, will he consider the desirability of a reduction in the rate of interest on Post Office sight deposits.

Mr. Dalton: There is no evidence of any such transfers. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him last Thursday.

PUBLIC COMPANIES (GOVERNMENT NOMINEES)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which public company boards His Majesty's Government appoints directors; and whether he will state the names of the appointees and the boards on which they serve, respectively.

Mr. Dalton: I am having a list prepared and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. E. Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state

CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE.


Statisticians.


Director
…
1
Mr. H. Campion
…
…
…
£1,450 (fixed)


Chief Assistants
…
4
Mr. J. Stafford
…
…
…
£1,000


(£800–£1,000)


Mr. R. F. Fowler
…
…
…
£900





Mr. R. H. Coarse
…
…
…
£850





Mr. W. C. Taplin
…
…
…
£850


Assistants
…
6
Mr. B. N. Davies
…
…
…
£700


(£600–£800 men)


Mr. E. F. Jackson
…
…
…
£700


(£480–£775 women)


Mr J Cohen
…
…
…
£700





Mr. C. R. Jones
…
…
…
£650





Mr. R. E. Beales
…
…
…
£650





Miss J. G. Marley
…
…
…
£530


Junior Assistants
…
7
Mr. L. T. Clarke
…
…
…
£450+£50 allce.


(£260–£450 men)


Mr. T. Eastwood
…
…
…
£310


(£260–£425 women)


Mr. C. J. Martin
…
…
…
£450+£100 allce.





Mrs. E. J. Donovan
…
…
…
£400





Miss M. O. Hardy
…
…
…
£310





Miss P. M. Nye
…
…
…
£385





Miss D. R. Shanahan
…
…

£425

Executive and Subordinate Staff.

Staff Officer
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
1
£550–£650


Chartists (women)
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
2
£200–£360


Clerical Officers (women)
…
…
…
…
…
…
10
£85–£280


Temporary Clerks (women) (Grade I)
…
…
…
…
1
62/6–76/6


Temporary Clerks (Grade II)
…
…
…
…
2
33/–66/6


Temporary Clerks (Grade III)
…
…
…
…
1
16/–59/-


Superintendent of Typists
…
…
…
…
…
…
1
£85–£280


Temporary Shorthand Typist, Grade I
…
…
…
…
2
40/–64/6


Established Typist…
…
…
…
…
…
…
1
31/–60/-


Temporary Typists…
…
…
…
…
…
…
6
25/–57/6


Established Messenger
…
…
…
…
…
…
1
£160–£205


Unestablished Messengers
…
…
…
…
…
…
4
56/6–58/6

the basis on which Government-appointed members of the boards of public companies are chosen.

Mr. Dalton: On grounds of ability and suitable experience.

Mr. E. Davies: Is the Chancellor aware that a large number of these gentlemen hold several directorships of public companies, and is he satisfied that they represent the Government sufficiently well to carry out the Government's current policy?

Mr. Dalton: If any particular case arises in which I do not feel satisfied, something will have to be done about it.

CENTRAL STATISTICAL OFFICE

Mr. Spearman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present organisation of the Central Statistical Office.

Mr. Dalton: I will, with the hon. Mem-Member's permission, circulate this information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

EQUAL PAY (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Viscountess Davidson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the Report of the Royal Commission on Equal Pay.

Mr. Dalton: As the Prime Minister informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Flight-Lieutenant Beswick) on 31st October, this Royal Commission is still taking evidence.

EXPORT TRADE (STERLING BALANCES)

Mr. Norman Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the need of imported raw materials and foodstuffs, he is taking steps to prevent British exports from being used up in a reduction of sterling balances.

Mr. Dalton: Far from being used up, the present tendency of overseas sterling balances is to increase.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that because of the failure to import raw materials for making a certain specialised paper in the manufacture of which England stands alone, we are losing a great amount of foreign export trade which could be obtained at the present time?

Mr. Dalton: That is quite a different question from the one on the Paper and perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down.

Mr. Bossom: My question concerned the manufacture of specialised paper, medical filter paper, and its raw material, which we are not allowed to import at the present time.

Mr. Dalton: If the hon. Member will put it down I will give him a considered reply.

Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by his reply that raw materials are not being used for the purpose of reducing particular sterling balances?

Mr. Dalton: I endeavoured to answer the Question on the Paper. If another hon. Member wants to put another question, I will be glad to answer it later on.

STERLING EXCHANGE RATES (EUROPE)

Colonel Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will, in consultation with the other Governments concerned, revise the official rates of exchange for sterling in the different countries of Europe so that they may accord more closely with the true currency values prevailing in each territory.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Any such consultations should, in my view, be initiated by the other Governments concerned..

Colonel Erroll: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present rates are a hardship to the occupying forces and do clothing to prevent inflation, and cannot we take the initiative instead of leaving it to other Governments?

Mr. Dalton: It is a very delicate matter to make such suggestions to foreign Governments.

Mr. Charles Williams: I presume the Government always leave it to others to take the initiative?

BRETTON WOODS AGREEMENT (RATIFICATION)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the pledge already given in this House, he will give an assurance that no commitment will be made on behalf of His Majesty's Government during the present negotiations in Washington to ratify the Bretton Woods Agreement.

Mr. Dalton: It will be for Parliament to decide whether the Bretton Woods Agreement should be ratified.

Mr. Boothby: May I ask my right hon. Friend to answer the Question on the Paper? Will he further say whether the statements that have appeared in the Press that the redemption of any loans that may be granted by the United States will depend on the size of our holding in the proposed monetary fund have any foundation?

Mr. Dalton: I have already had to warn the House, with regard to these Washington talks, that not everything in the Press is to be believed. When our negotiations


have reached a decisive point the House will be informed of them and there will be an opportunity for discussion and decision on the matters involved.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Chancellor recollect that in replying to a Question he gave a categorical assurance to the House that no decision would be taken until the House had been consulted, and does that answer still stand?

Mr. Dalton: This is the third time I have been asked a question about Bretton Woods, and all three answers stand; they are all consistent with one another.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In view of the immense importance of this matter to present and future generations, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be wise to obtain the opinion of this new Parliament

The following are the payments which have been made by the Welsh Church Commission for staff salaries, office and administration expenses generally for the period 24th September, 1914, to 31st October, 1945, and the Commission's present annual expenditure:—


—
Total from 24 September,1914, to 31 October, 1945.
Present Annual Expenditure.


Establishment Charges—
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Salaries
…
…
…
…
…
…
247,999
0
8
6,180
0
0


Travelling and subsistence allowances
…
…
10,178
12
6
*575
0
0


Postage, telegrams and telephone
…
…
…
4,324
13
8
60
0
0


Law charges, etc. and incidentals
…
…
…
53,862
15
1
1,500
0
0


Printing and stationery
…
…
…
…
5,553
17
1
25
0
0


Office Accommodation
…
…
…
…
23,526
5
10
320
0
0









345,445
4
10
8,660
0
0


Costs in connection with tithe rentals
…
…
16,521
19
11
—


Costs in connection with valuation of chancels
…
1,479
19
8
—


Costs of surveys and reports on glebe, etc.
…
…
17,513
19
3
†1,700
0
0


Agents' cost of collection of tithe and rents, and allowances for postages, etc.
189,396
6
4
—


Agents' costs in connection with the preparation of returns under Section 5 of the Tithe Act, 1936.
5,594
4
10
—









£575,951
14
10
£10,360
0
0


* Includes £395 Billeting allowances.


†Chiefly fees in connection with surveys of Burial Grounds.

NON-PARLIAMENTARY PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Maxton: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will arrange for the "Ministry of Labour Gazette." the "Board of Trade Gazette." and similar publications to be made Parliamentary Papers available to hon. Members at the Vote Office on request.

through the medium of a Debate before the Government are called upon to make a decision?

Mr. Dalton: I do not think I can add to my answer, which I think is very clear.

WELSH CHURCH COMMISSIONERS (EXPENSES)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how much has been spent by the Welsh Church Commissioners on staff salaries, offices and administration generally since their appointment; and what is their present annual expenditure.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Since the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. Copies of these non-Parliamentary publications are available in the Library for information and Members may obtain copies by application to the Stationery Office on the green demand form.

Mr. Maxton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one cannot take a Library copy home? [An HON MEMBER: "Only


one can."] Does he not agree that the filling-up of the green form is a nuisance and causes delay?

Mr. Hall: That is realised, but nevertheless these are not Parliamentary publications, and the publications issued by the Stationery Office cover a very wide field. If we opened the door in one direction, we should have to open it very widely. As far as concerns publications which are published week by week, the Stationery Office will accept one green demand form to cover the whole Session. I think that should meet the point put by my hon. Friend.

Earl Winterton: Will the Financial Secretary look into this matter, because to the best of my recollection, before 1914, the "Board of Trade Gazette" and other publications were sent with the Parliamentary Papers? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the question before giving such a confident reply?

Mr. Hall: I have made sure of the facts. Whatever the situation was before 1914, what I have said is the situation today. These are not Parliamentary publications.

Mr. Maxton: Is not the difference between a Parliamentary Paper and a Stationery Office Paper what this Parliament decides it shall be? If we can get, as we do, I think, the "Trade and Navigation Returns," which is a publication of the same kind, why cannot we have these other publications which are of great importance to hon. Members?

Mr. Hall: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has misunderstood the reply. It is that he can have these publications. All he has to do is to ask for them. We cannot do more than that.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

Films (Distribution Abroad)

Mr. Reeves: asked the Minister of Information when he expects to be able to translate into actual figures the estimated cost of, and income derived from, films distributed abroad by his Ministry.

The Minister of Information (Mr. E. J. Williams): I hope my hon. Friend will be content with the answer given to him on 30th October. The exact figures are not readily available, and to compile a com-

prehensive return would involve an excessive amount of work.

Mr. Reeves: In view of the very large sum of money involved, is there any means of checking the accounts in regard to these films?

Mr. Williams: The accounts go before the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. C. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the House should be denied these figures? Is it part of the Government's secrecy policy?

British Newspapers (Supplies, Europe)

Major Digby: asked the Minister of Information how many copies of British daily newspapers are on sale to the public in the following countries, respectively, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway; and whether he is satisfied that these numbers are sufficient, in view of the importance of these countries learning the British point of view after years of enemy occupation and propaganda.

Mr. E. J. Williams: France, 5,800; Belgium, 8,8oo; Holland, 3,900; Denmark, 1,260; Norway, 1,260. The distribution is by normal commercial sale, and though I hope to see even more copies going in future, supplies are sufficient to meet the present orders almost in full.

Major Digby: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that no English daily newspapers have reached Paris on several days lately; and whether he will take steps to ensure that future supplies are uninterrupted in view of the demand by the French public for these newspapers.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Waterloo (Captain Bullock) on 8th November.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my right hon. Friend see that the British daily newspapers going to these countries really do give the British point of view?

Mr. Williams: I am not responsible for the contents of newspapers.

British Information Services (U.S.A.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Information if he will make a statement on the future of the British Information Services in the U.S.A.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I regret that I cannot make any statement on this matter until the general future of the Ministry of Information is decided.

Mr. Driberg: Are the statements which have appeared that the staff has recently been drastically reduced correct, and is it not more important than ever at this moment to have the British case presented authoritatively and adequately in America?

Mr. Williams: I agree with my hon. Friend's remark. I think the case should be presented adequately to America. With regard to the first part of his supplementary question, the staff has been substantially reduced during the last few months.

Mr. Driberg: I am sorry—I could not hear. Has the staff been cut or not?

Mr. Williams: Yes, it has, but the statements in the Press are not quite accurate.

Mr. Driberg: How much has it been cut, and why?

Mr. Williams: I would ask my hon. Friend to put that question on the Paper.

B.B.C. Monitoring Report

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Information what is the estimated total cost of production of the B.B.C. Monitoring Report; whether it is now proposed to confine the distribution of this Report to Government Departments; and what is the estimated extra annual cost of supplying a copy to any individual whose work makes it desirable that he should be quickly and accurately informed of what is being broadcast in other countries.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Production of the B.B.C. Monitoring Report is an integral part of the B.B.C. Monitoring Service and no separate estimate of cost is available. Distribution of the Report is not confined to Government Departments and limited supplies are available for Press and private recipients. Though the extra cost of running off individual copies is comparatively small, it is considered fair that outside recipients should be charged a fee which is a contribution towards the cost of production. In cases where the Digest is required wholly or mainly for work on behalf of the B.B.C. or a Government Department the fee will be waived.

Mr. Bartlett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department is now demanding from these outside people the sum of £25 a year, which is a perfectly absurd price to demand for a five or six page document, and will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Williams: I realise, of course, that they are doing that, but I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is really a modification, and, if this is to be used mainly or wholly by the B.B.C, it can be obtained free. The Press has always paid for this service, and I see no necessity for persons who have no common use for it to have it free.

Mr. Bartlett: Does not the Minister agree that the people who have much more use for it than people sitting in Government Departments should have access to it?

Mr. Williams: I would be prepared toconsider the matter again.

B.B.C. (Engineering Expenditure)

Mr. E. Davies: asked the Minister of Information whether the approximate sum of £3,550,000 expended by the B.B.C. on engineering works and equipment between 1st September, 1939, and 31st March, 1945, was financed out of the annual grant-in-aid made by His Majesty's Treasury or specially provided; and whether the works so financed are now the property of the B.B.C.

Mr. E. J. Williams: The expenditure referred to was financed by the Corporation from the annual grants in aid. The ownership of the works is at present vested in the Corporation, but their ultimate disposal is to be dealt with as part of the general settlement between the Government and the Corporation on the termination of the war time financial arrangements, when it will be necessary to take into account the requirements of the broadcasting services, both Home and Overseas, which the Corporation will be called upon to conduct under peace time conditions.

DISTRESSED PERSONS, EUROPE (ADMISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM)

Miss Bacon: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a posi-


tion to make a statement about the admission to this country of distressed persons on the Continent who have relatives here able and willing to look after them.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. It is the desire of His Majesty's Government that our contribution towards the alleviation of distress in Europe shall be the maximum which the resources of this country permit. With this object the Government has considered which of the classes of distressed persons among the countless cases calling for sympathy have special claims to join relatives in the United Kingdom and to receive protection and help; and they have authorised a scheme of admission to this country for the purposes of enabling husbands, wives and dependent children to be reunited, of enabling young people who have no-one to give them a guardian's care to receive such care from relatives (whether near or distant relatives) in this country, and of enabling elderly people who are in special need of filial care to find shelter in the homes of children or grandchildren in the United Kingdom.
In pursuance of this scheme instructions will be sent to Passport Control Officers that when a person in distressed circumstances on the Continent has an offer from a relative in the United Kingdom of maintenance and accommodation in his home a visa may be granted (subject to considerations of public health and character) if the applicant falls into one of the following categories:

(1) the wife of a man who is in the United Kingdom and any of his children under 21. If the result of bringing the wife and any children under 21 to the United Kingdom would be to leave alone and in distressed circumstances one daughter over 21 who is unmarried or widowed and without children, she also may be allowed to come;
(2) the husband of a woman who is in the United Kingdom, if he is in capacitated, infirm or too old to support his wife abroad;
(3) females under 21 with their children, if any, and males under 18, who have no relatives to look after them abroad but have a relative in the United Kingdom able and willing to take them into his household;

(4) the mother or grandmother of a person in the United Kingdom if she is widowed and in need of filial care;
(5) the father or grandfather of a person in the United Kingdom if widowed and in need of special care owing to age or infirmity.
(6) Where both man and wife are living together abroad, such couples may be admitted if because of age or infirmity, or other special circumstances, they are unable to look after and support one another, and are offered hospitality by a child or grand child in this country.
All admissions to the United Kingdom under this scheme will be subject to time limits, which will be reviewed periodically in the light of circumstances obtaining at future dates.
It will be right that many of the younger people shall engage in occupations in which there is a special need of workers such, for example, as agricultural work, and it will be a condition that persons admitted under the scheme shall take such employment only as is approved by the Minister of Labour. Persons in this country wishing to invite a relative who falls into one of these categories should write, not to the Home Office, but to the relative on the Continent a letter showing that maintenance and accommodation is available and should advise the recipient to show the letter to the Passport Control Officer at the British Embassy in the country in which the relative is at present. As regards Germany and Austria where there is no British Embassy, special arrangements for dealing with applications from persons in those countries will be worked out as soon as possible. If some people may be disappointed that the scheme does not cover their relatives or friends, it must be recognised that no scheme of this kind is workable unless it operates within clearly denned limits, and a flood of letters to the Home Office about persons who do not fall within the prescribed categories will merely impede the official machine.
It is not possible to give a numerical estimate of the persons likely to be admitted under this scheme and its operation will be carefully watched. The difficulties are obvious which would be caused by large-scale additions to our foreign population at the present time when there


is a shortage of housing and of supplies of many kinds, and when we are struggling to repair the losses and dislocations of a five-year war to which we have sacrificed our resources without stint; but it will, I think, be the general desire of the British people that, despite these difficulties and within the limits imposed by them, the utmost should be done to maintain this country's historic tradition of affording asylum to the distressed. It is to be hoped that other countries will share the task with this straitened island and will, in proportion to their resources, give opportunities of refuge in their territories to many of these victims of oppression.

Mr. Osbert Peake: Whilst welcoming the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him two questions? The first is whether, in every case, guarantees of maintenance will be required before the visa is granted; secondly, whether he is devising machinery to ensure that guarantees of maintenance are in fact genuine, and will be carried out?

Mr. Ede: The answer to both supplementary questions is in the affirmative.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask my right hon. Friend what facilities for transport will be placed at the disposal of such persons as are allowed, under the scheme, to enter this country?

Mr. Ede: Transport is, as I have told the House on previous occasions, a considerable difficulty. Persons will be expected to make their own arrangements for transport, but any influence that I can bring to bear to assist genuine cases in coming here under the scheme will be used.

Mr. Silverman: But will the right hon. Gentleman remember that a great many of the people who will benefit by this scheme are survivors of concentration camps, who are still resident there, and they could not possibly have any voice in obtaining transport for themselves?

Mr. Ede: I had hoped that the answer I gave to the supplementary question was reasonably sympathetic. I desire, and the Government desire, that this scheme shall work. These matters of detail will have to be met from time to time, and we will make every endeavour to meet the exigencies of the situation.

Sir Ralph Glyn: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the passport officers. Since many of the applicants for this relief will be aliens, will they be allowed to use a special passport, or will it have to be a British passport?

Mr. Ede: I think they will have to come on a British passport. May I appeal to the House that on these matters of detail, they should read my long and detailed statement in the Official Report in the morning? If, on any of these matters of detail, they desire further enlightenment, I shall be very willing either to answer a Question on the Paper, or to meet them and discuss the matter.

Major Cecil Poole: May I ask the Minister whether this scheme has been agreed with the U.S.S.R.; and will it be applicable to persons who are resident in the zones under the control of the Soviet authorities?

Mr. Ede: I could not answer the first part of that supplementary question in the affirmative, but it is applicable to people who come within the categories which I named, no matter where they may reside, provided that they are persons distressed as the result of the war.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Could my right hon. Friend have a considerable number of copies of his statement printed for the benefit of hon. Members so that we could sent them off in letters?

Mr. Ede: I will consider the suggestion that has been made, and endeavour to meet it.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: May I ask a question about one group which the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned? There are numbers of people who helped us tremendously in the underground movement abroad and who have no relations here and many of us would like, if we could, to have them over here at our expense. Those people are in great distress at the moment, and if they could be "O.K'd" by our embassies and legations, would it be possible to include them?

Mr. Ede: This is a first step that I have announced. I have been frank with the House and have told them that I do not know the numbers in which I shall be involved here. I ask the House to allow this scheme to work and, if it is possible


to extend it, it will be extended. It may be that the requests will be so numerous that we may even have to contract the scheme, or delay its application. Therefore, I am not able to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the assurance he would like with regard to that particular category of persons.

PALESTINE (ANGLO-AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I should like, with the permission of the House, to make a statement.
His Majesty's Government have been giving serious and continuous attention to the whole problem of the Jewish community that has arisen as a result of Nazi persecution in Germany, and the conditions arising there from. It is, unfortunately, true that until conditions in Europe become stable, the future of a large number of persons of many races, who have suffered under this persecution, cannot finally be determined. The plight of the victims of Nazi persecution, among whom were a large number of Jews, is unprecedented in the history of the world. His Majesty's Government are taking every step open to them to try to improve the lot of these unfortunate people. The Jewish problem is a great human one. We cannot accept the view that the Jews should be driven out of Europe, and should not be permitted to live again in these countries without discrimination, and contribute their ability and their talent towards rebuilding the prosperity of Europe. Even after we have done all we can in this respect, it does not provide a solution of the whole problem.
There have recently been demands made upon us for large-scale immigration into Palestine. Palestine, while it may be able to make a contribution, does not, by itself, provide sufficient opportunity for grappling with the whole problem. His Majesty's Government are anxious to explore every possibility which will result in giving the Jews a proper opportunity for revival.
The problem of Palestine is itself a very difficult one. The Mandate for Palestine requires the Mandatory to facilitate Jewish immigration, and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land,

while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced thereby. His Majesty's Government have thus a dual obligation, to the Jews on the one side and to the Arabs on the other. The lack of any clear definition of this dual obligation has been the main cause of the trouble which has been experienced in Palestine during the past 26 years. His Majesty's Government have made every effort to devise some arrangements which would enable Arabs and Jews to live together in peace and to co-operate for the welfare of the country, but all such efforts have been unavailing. Any arrangement acceptable to one party has been rejected as unacceptable to the other. The whole history of Palestine since the Mandate was granted, has been one of continued friction between the two races, culminating at intervals in serious disturbances.
The fact has to be faced that since the introduction of the Mandate it has been impossible to find common ground between the Arabs and the Jews. The differences in religion and in language, in cultural and social life, in ways of thought and conduct, are difficult to reconcile. On the other hand, both communities lay claim to Palestine, one on the ground of a millenium of occupation, and the other on the ground of historic association coupled with the undertaking given in the first world war to establish a Jewish home. The task that has to be accomplished now is to find means to reconcile these divergences.
The repercussions of the conflict have spread far beyond the small land in which it has arisen. The Zionist cause has strong supporters in the United States, in Great Britain, in the Dominions and elsewhere; civilisation has been appalled by the sufferings which have been inflicted in recent years on the persecuted Jews of Europe. On the other side of the picture, the cause of the Palestinian Arabs has been espoused by the whole Arab world and more lately has become a matter of keen interest to their 90,000,000 co-religionists in India. In Palestine itself there is always the serious risk of disturbances on the part of one condition or the other, and such disturbances are bound to find their reflection in a much wider field. Considerations not only of equity and of humanity, but also of international amity and world peace, are thus involved in any search for solution.
In dealing with Palestine all parties have entered into commitments. There are the commitments imposed by the Mandate itself, and, in addition, the various statements of policy which have been made by His Majesty's Government in the course of the last 25 years. Further, the United States Government themselves have undertaken that no decision should be taken in respect of what, in their opinion, affects the basic situation in Palestine, without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews.
Having regard to the whole situation and the fact that it has caused this worldwide interest which affects both Arabs and Jews, His Majesty's Government decided to invite the Government of the United States to co-operate with them in setting up a joint Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, under a rotating chairmanship, to examine the question of European Jewry and to make a further review of the Palestine problem in the light of that examination. I am happy to be able to inform the House that the Government of the United States have accepted this invitation.
The terms of reference that have been agreed between the United States Government and His Majesty's Government are as follow:
 (1) To examine political, economic and social conditions of Palestine as they bear upon the problem of Jewish immigration and settlement therein, and the wellbeing of the peoples now living therein.
(2) To examine the position of the Jews in those countries in Europe where they have been the victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution and the practical measures taken or contemplated to be taken in those countries, to enable them to live free from discrimination and oppression and to make estimates of those who wish, or will be impelled by their conditions to migrate to Palestine, or other countries outside Europe.
(3) To hear the view of competent witnesses and to consult representative Arabs and Jews on the problems of Palestine as such problems are affected by conditions subject to examination under paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 above, and by other relevant facts and circumstances, and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Govern-

ment and to the Government of the United States for ad interim handling of those problems, as well as for their permanent solution.
(4) To make such other recommendations to His Majesty's Government, and the Government of the United States, as may be necessary to meet the immediate needs arising from conditions subject to examination under paragraph 2 above, by remedial action in the European countries in question, or by the provision of facilities for emigration to, and settlement in, countries outside Europe.
Those are the terms of reference. The procedure of the Committee will be determined by the Committee themselves and it will be open to them, if they think fit, to deal simultaneously, through the medium of sub-committees, with their various terms of reference. The Committee will be invited to deal with the matters refererd to in their terms of reference with the utmost expedition. In complying with the second and fourth paragraphs of their terms of reference, the Committee will presumably, take such steps as they consider necessary in order to inform themselves of the character and magnitude of the problem created by the war. They will also give consideration to the problem of settlement in Europe, and to possible countries of disposal. In the light of their investigations, they will make recommendations to the two Governments for dealing with the problem in the interim until such time as a permanent solution can be submitted to the appropriate organ of the United Nations.
The recommendations of a Committee of Inquiry such as will now be set up, will also be of immense help in arriving at a solution of the Palestine problem. The Committee will, in accordance with the first and third paragraphs of their terms of reference, make an examination, on the spot, of the political, economic and social conditions which are at present held to restrict immigration into Palestine, and, after consulting representative Arabs and Jews, submit proposals for dealing with these problems. It will be necessary for His Majesty's Government, both to take action with a view to securing some satisfactory interim arrangements, and also to devise a policy for permanent application thereafter. This inquiry will facilitate the finding of a solu-


tion which will, in turn, facilitate the arrangements for placing Palestine under trusteeship.
So far as Palestine is concerned, it will be clear that His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of their duties and responsibilities under the Mandate while the Mandate continues. They propose, in accordance with their pledges, to deal with the question in three stages:

(i) They will consult the Arabs with a view to an arrangement which will ensure that pending the receipt of the ad interim recommendations which the Committee of Inquiry will make on the matter there is no interruption of Jewish immigration at the present monthly rate.
(ii) After considering the ad interim recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry, they will explore, with the parties concerned, the possibility of devising other temporary arrangements for dealing with the Palestine problem, until a permanent solution of it can be reached.
(iii) They will prepare a permanent solution for submission to the United Nations, and if possible an agreed one.

The House will realise that we have inherited in Palestine a most difficult legacy, and our task is greatly complicated by undertakings given at various times to various parties, which we feel ourselves bound to honour.

Miss Rathbone: What about your own policy?

Mr. Bevin: Any violent departure without adequate consultation would not only afford ground for a charge of breach of faith against His Majesty's Government but would probably cause serious reactions throughout the Middle East and would arouse widespread anxiety in India.
His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the course which they propose to pursue in the immediate future, is not only that which is in accordance with their obligations, but is also that which, in the long view, is in the best interests of both parties. It will in no way prejudice either the action to be taken on the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry, or the terms of the Trusteeship Agreement which will supersede the exist-

ing Mandate, and will, therefore, control ultimate policy in regard to Palestine.
His Majesty's Government in making this new approach, wish to make it clear that the Palestine problem is not one which can be settled by force, and that any attempt to do so, by any party, will be resolutely dealt with. It must be settled by discussion and conciliation, and there can be no question of allowing an issue to be forced by violent conflict. We have confidence that if this problem is approached in the right spirit by Arabs and Jews, not only will a solution be found to the Palestine question, just to both parties, but a great contribution will be made to the stability and peace in the Middle East.
Finally, the initiative taken by His Majesty's Government, and the agreement of the United States Government to co operate in dealing with the whole problem created by Nazi aggression is a significant sign of their determination to deal with this problem in a constructive way and a humanitarian spirit. But I must emphasise that the problem is not one which can be dealt with only in relation to Palestine: it will need a united effort by the Powers to relieve the miseries of these suffering peoples. I would add, in conclusion that, throughout, there has been the closest consultation between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and myself in this matter, which concerns him since the Mandatory status of Palestine brings that territory within the responsibility of the Colonial Office, but which is also a deep concern to me, since the problem is clearly an international problem. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government that the problem shall continue to be handled in close collaboration between our two Departments, in order that the particular question of Palestine, and the wider international issues which are involved, may be harmonised, and treated as a whole, as a great human problem.

Colonel Oliver Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman has just made a most important statement on a most delicate and difficult problem. There are obvious questions, and there are matters on which we should like explanation, but I personally feel, and I think many hon. Members will agree, that I would much prefer not to have to put them until we


have had an opportunity to study the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and that any discussion should take place, not in the atmosphere of questions and answers, which, in delicate matters like this, always presents certain dangers, but in reasoned debate. If the right hon. Gentleman can say, as I hope he will be able to say, that the House is soon to be given an opportunity to debate this urgent matter, I would prefer to postpone any comment.

Mr. Bevin: I think that if the right hon. Gentleman would put that question to the Leader of the House on Thursday we might have an opportunity to consider it. We have not considered a Debate, but if representations are made—[Interruption.] I ask hon. Members not to get excited. I personally do not deal with arrangements for Debates.

Colonel Stanley: Can I put a question to the Leader of the House now? The position is that I, and I think many other hon. Members, would be prepared to waive our right to ask questions now if we were assured that there would be a Debate. I do not ask that, immediately, the Leader of the House should settle the arrangements and the day, but perhaps he would say, in response to what I think is a united request on the part of the House, that he would give a day soon for Debate.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): We shall not be difficult on that point at all, if there is a general wish in the House for a Debate, and I gather there is. My right hon. Friend and I thought that as the statement has just been made, it would be as well if Members were to read it carefully, and then, if they want to talk about it, an approach could be made through the usual channels, and, if necessary, I would make an announcement on Thursday.

Mr. Janner: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the statement he has made that the responsibility of the Mandate rests upon our shoulders, he proposes that that responsibility should be carried out until some new policy is adopted; and whether he proposes to insist that that should be in the forefront of any new policy; also if he will bear in mind the fact that, at the present time, there are some 1,250,000 people anxious to go to Palestine, and see what arrangements can be made?

Mr. Bevin: I would say to my hon. Friend that this problem has been one of the most baffling in the world, and I would appeal to him not to introduce racial feeling. From my point of view, I can assure him that I am struggling to the best of my ability as Foreign Secretary to solve this problem, not, I hope, on the basis of the passions involved in the immediate difficulties now facing us. But I am sure that this House and Jewry as a whole, apart from the Zionist organisations, are anxious to see a final solution. I give my hon. Friend my personal assurance, as I gave it to one of the Jewish leaders the other day, that I will stake my political future on solving this problem, but not in the limited sphere presented to me now.

Mr. Stokes: I want to ask the Foreign Secretary a question on this very important point. I have no wish to raise controversy on this matter. [Interruption.] I wish to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will bear in mind that his preamble, while referring to specific promises made to the Jews, did not make any specific reference to the categorical promises made previously to the Arabs. Particularly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Arabs have made perfectly clear to everybody their willingness to help in this vital problem by admitting Jews into territories other than Palestine?

Mr. Bevin: I beg my hon. Friend, in this crisis, not to pursue racial antagonisms. It is the most difficult thing in this world to settle anything when racial antagonism is raised. The Arabs are meeting me very well, and I thank them for it. There is a great sense of responsibility, except for one small section, among Jewry, and not all the Jews are Zionists. They want this problem settled. I am pursuing this course in the hope of trying to find a solution. I know it has difficulties. This is the first time I have heard the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) not being controversial. But, when we have had so many wars, so much bloodshed, over racial antagonism, I would appeal to this House to help me to carry out my job, and find a solution of this problem.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of the arrangement that has been made, I do not want to ask my right hon. Friend any questions. I think it would be wrong


however to let the opportunity pass, without thanking the Foreign Secretary for his very careful and lengthy statement, and for the spirit in which it was made, and to congratulate him on having secured the co-operation, in this difficult matter, of the United States Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Earl Winterton: As it seems likely that the Government Business announced for Friday will not take long, I beg to give notice that the Opposition will raise, officially, matters relating to U.N.R.R.A. From conversations which I have had behind the Chair, I understand that this course will not be inconvenient to His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Boothby: On a point of Order. I have had the permission of Mr. Speaker to raise a matter concerning the future of the film industry in this country when the Adjournment is moved on Friday. I knew nothing of this arrangement of the Opposition Front Bench, and I submit that it is in breach of one of the few rights remaining to Private Members.

Earl Winterton: In that case, I beg to give notice that I will table a Resolution and ask for time for discussion of this matter.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: If the Noble Lord would do these things in the usual way, these troubles would not arise. I understood that the Noble Lord was going to ask whether facilities could be provided on Friday. That is a convenient day. If the House could agree to accelerate the Government Business on the Order Paper, perhaps there could be an agreement that the subject mentioned, on which I understand both sides of the House would like some discussion, should be taken on Friday and an appeal made to hon. Members, who have some rights, as to whether they would fall in with that arrangement.

Earl Winterton: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, I hope that it is not a breach of confidence to say that I was specifically asked to do this, by the Minister in departmental charge of the matter. I, therefore, gave notice to table a Resolution, to put myself in Order.

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Maxton rose—

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has accused me of doing something which I did not do.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am very sorry—[Interruption]. I suggest that the Noble Lord should not make it difficult for a Minister to say that he is sorry. It is hard enough sometimes, any way. I am sorry if there has been a misunderstanding. There were conversations, and there was a suggestion made by the Noble Lord. I understood it was by way of request and that we were going to meet him. But if I try to fix Business, on arrangements made between one of my right hon. Friends and the Noble Lord, I shall get into trouble. If we try to allow this Debate on Friday, I think it will be convenient, and who knows, the official business may go through so quickly, that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) may be heard as well.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order. I do not want to trouble you with this matter, Sir, in the position of Deputy-Speaker which has been thrust upon you, but I propose, if the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) does not raise it with Mr. Speaker, to ask for a specific Ruling on the subject, because it is an entirely new proposition to me that there can be any demand made collectively for the Adjournment Motion.

Mr. Boothby: I should like to say that I have not the slightest intention of giving up my rights as a Private Member. For the guidance of the House, I would ask the Noble Lord to tell us whether he is acting now, as Leader of the Opposition or not.

Earl Winterton: In view of the reference which the hon. Member below the Gangway has made, may I say I agree that the Front Bench has no precedence, but I submit, on a point of Order, that it is open to any hon. Member to put a Resolution on the Paper, and to ask the Government for time to discuss it.

Mr. Gallacher: How is it that the Noble Lord can make "a deal" behind the Chair? I have tried time and time again to do so, without success.

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (WARTIME CONTRAVENTIONS) BILL

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

[No. 21.]

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Fourth Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read, as follows:

Your Committee have considered the Purchase Tax (Alteration of Rates) (No. 5) Order, 1945 (S.R. & O., 1945, No. 1314), a copy of which was presented on 30th October, and are of opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to it, on any of the grounds set out in the Order of Reference to the Committee.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FURNISHED HOUSES (RENT CONTROL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.0 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move," That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House may recall that a short time ago, when I made my statement on housing policy, I outlined three proposals which the Government intended to adopt for the purpose of meeting the acuteness of the housing shortage. The first of those proposals was to try to make as much use as possible of existing accommodation, and in consequence of that a regulation was made recently which now makes it impossible to convert residential premises into offices without first obtaining the consent of the housing authority. A second regulation, which I hope will be promulgated very shortly will enable citizens to make available parts of their dwellings and will exempt those portions of their dwellings from the application of the Rent Restriction Acts. This Bill is the third stage in trying to protect the people of Great Britain against the consequences of the housing stringency. It is true that the Bill is a simple Measure and merely repeats, in almost exact words, the enactment which now applies to Scotland, but I would like hon. Members to reflect that there is a great deal of difference between the circumstances in Scotland and those prevailing in England and Wales, and the same enactment applied to both might have entirely different consequences. For example, there are in London alone very many more flats and very many more premises that could be brought under this Bill when it becomes law than exist in the whole of Scotland, and hon. Members who are familiar with the circumstances in London will appreciate that a piece of legislation which may be carried out with very simple administrative machinery in Scotland may require very much more elaborate and extensive machinery when applied to England and Wales.
The purpose of the Bill is, first, to protect those who are in need of homes against being charged exorbitant rents for furnished lettings or unfurnished lettings with services. Large


numbers of men will be coming home from the Forces very shortly and large numbers of them will be getting married and will want to set up homes, and it would be much more desirable that they should set up homes in houses of their own—very much more desirable. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear."] I am very glad to get the support of hon. Members opposite. We all realise the way in which they exerted themselves to accomplish this purpose. But meantime, whatever we may do, this winter there will still be large numbers of people who will have to find accommodation in other people's homes. As a general rule, our people do not exploit citizens in distressful circumstances, but hon. Members know very well that there are large numbers of people who are at the moment, or will be very shortly, living in furnished apartments, who are being or will be charged unreasonably high rents unless they are given legal protection. It is one of the purposes of the Bill to try to give that protection.
There is another aspect of this matter that perhaps has not received as much consideration as it should. We are very anxious to preserve our reputation for hospitality and just treatment towards people coming to live here temporarily, and also very anxious that London should be visited as much as possible by people coming from other countries. Furthermore, we often need London as a centre for international conferences. In my judgment, and I am sure it is the view of the House as a whole, it is extremely undesirable that when visitors come to London they should be charged exorbitant rates for the buildings they need to occupy. So from those two points of view, that of our own people who will have to find accommodation, and the point of view of preserving our reputation for just hospitality, it is now necessary that we should have a Bill of this sort to bring these rents within legal control.
I know that a strong case can be I made for the enactment of the whole of the recommendations of the Ridley Committee, and the Government would not have been loth to do so were it not for the fact that the preparation of a Bill of that sort would have strained the machinery at our disposal and that we have not the Parliamentary time to devote to it. Therefore, I hope that in this matter the House will forgive the Gov-

ernment for not getting on with a very much more ambitious Measure and will accept this Bill as a kind of first-aid treatment for the patient, who later, perhaps, will require a very much more radical cure. But there is this advantage in carrying out a small Bill of this sort, that it will provide us with a great deal of valuable experience in the operation of rent. tribunals The Ridley Committee, after having wrestled with this vexed problem of rent control, recommended the establishment of these tribunals throughout the country, a very large undertaking, a very formidable piece of administration. One of the by-products of the operation of this Bill will be that it will provide us with experience of this kind of administration, which has already been very valuable in Scotland.
It will not be necessary to establish these tribunals everywhere. Every village, town or city will not require to have this Bill applied to it. That is why it is elastic in its application. These tribunals will be established only where the local authority requires them to be established and the Ministry of Health, either on its own initiative or in consultation with the local authority, deems fit to establish them. Of course, in every instance the Ministry of Health would consult with the local authority before the tribunal was set up. There are large areas of this country where this problem does not exist. In rural areas it has no existence at all; in most of our provincial small towns tribunals dealing with this problem would be unnecessary. There the exercise and the discipline of public opinion and good neighbourliness are sufficient to keep the rents of furnished dwellings within reasonable limits. This problem is almost entirely a metropolitan one. It arises in areas where the citizen is a lonely creature, where he has to tramp the streets looking for accommodation and there is no climate of opinion that can assist him against a landlord or a landlady who is inclined to take advantage of his plight. Therefore, these tribunals in my view and in our expectation, will be established in a limited number of areas. Nor, indeed, is it necessary that they should be established for the whole of a local government area. They may be established in that particular part of it where the problem is acute and where the evidence shows that a tribunal is necessary. Therefore, instead


of these tribunals being established at once, by ukase, all over the country they will come into existence where the local authority desires them to be established and where the opinion of hon. Members, derived from their local experiences, has satisfied us that they should be established.
Furthermore, it is not necessary in our judgment that the chairmen of these tribunals should always be legal persons. After all, no body of law has to be considered here. What is a reasonable rent is a question well within the competence of lay people, who have as much right to say what is a reasonable rent as has the Lord Chancellor. These tribunals will, it seems to me, work very much more justly and fit in more snugly with local circumstances if the chairman of a tribunal is usually a lay person. It has been suggested to me from some quarters that if we do not have legal persons and do not set up a code to govern these tribunals there will be different rulings in different places. Of course there may be, but different rulings in different places may secure more equity than the same ruling everywhere, because these furnished dwellings are in different social contexts, and, therefore, the opinion of a local tribunal as to what the rent should be in a particular place is of much more value than a decision based upon abstract rules which, if applied to everybody, might bear hardly on certain people. Therefore, I feel that these tribunals ought to work with the utmost freedom and should have regard, always empirically, to the circumstances of the case rather than that they should seek to apply juridical principles.
I know it will be said in criticism that one of the weaknesses of the Bill is that for the tribunal to hear the appellants and fix the rent will take a little time, and that where the previous rent has been too high the person who has been aggrieved will have no chance of recovering arrears. I think hon. Members will find on reflection that perhaps that is not quite so much of an anomaly as might appear at first sight. Hon. Members must realise that there is at the moment no objective standard of what the rent should be, and the individual who, in the view of the tribunal has charged too high a rent may not, in fact, have been guilty of any degree of abuse. After all,

Landladies put different values upon their furniture, and I myself should hesitate to form a judgment on subjective impulses of that sort.
If the tribunal says the rent ought to be 15s. a week and it has, in fact, been 20s. it seems to me that it might create a very uncomfortable relationship between the tenant, who, after all, is living-in with the other people, if we enabled him to recover that 5s. It may impose an unnecessary hardship on the landlady, who may not be very well off and may have spent the money in the meantime, and it would not be too easy to recover the money. It seems to be very much more rational and common-sense, to try to expedite the hearing before the tribunals, and to let the new rent date from the time the rent is registered, rather than from the date when the rent was actually charged. To import into this rather loose machinery, the rigidity of the Rent Acts is to do violence to its intention. There is no statutory rent which can be charged. There is no standard rent and, therefore, until the tribunals have been operating for some time, landladies and landlords will have no criteria for determining what is a reasonable or unreasonable rent. Therefore, it would be unwise, in those circumstances, to import any power to cover arrears of excess rents.
There is a further criticism, and it has some substance in it. The landlord who has been taken to the tribunal and has been compelled to charge a lower rent than he was charging will, it is said, revenge himself on the tenant, and clear him out and, therefore, there is no protection at all in the Bill against that eventuality. I appreciate the problem. The Ridley Committee spoke about three months' tenure after the decision. There is, however, one protection and that is, that in any event the landlord will have to charge the registered rent; he will not be able to charge any more. He would be taking punitive action against the tenant in such a case. It would be pure spite. The new tenant will pay the registered rent unless there has been a substantial alteration in circumstances. There is one protection there. Secondly, and very much more important, the local authority will have the power to requisition the rooms and put the evicted tenant back into them if it wishes. That, I hope, is an observation which representatives of local authorities will note. It is


the power of requisitioning. For instance, a landlord cannot say that he is not going to take anyone in because the fact that he had somebody in, will be prima facie evidence that the house is under-occupied. In most instances, remember, we are dealing with people who make revenue out of the letting of rooms, and not with the occasional householder, who is dealt with under the general regulation. The people to whom this Bill will apply in most instances are those who make a livelihood,' or supplement their income by normally letting rooms and, therefore, they will always have accommodation. If, therefore, they evict a tenant and say, "You are a nasty man; get out, because you took me to the tribunal," then, if the local authority does its job, it will take possession and put the evicted tenant back again.

Mr. Marlowe: If a landlord evicts a tenant and puts in another tenant, or the room becomes occupied, then the local authority could not requisition?

Mr. Bevan: I think that that is true, but, as I say, the landlord in that instance would not be obtaining any financial benefit from what he had done, though I admit that he would gain a certain amount of satisfaction perhaps, at having his revenge. The Government are in a difficulty, and it is one that faces the whole House. We are not dealing with any differences of principle. We are all anxious to try to make the machinery work and I shall listen to the Debate with great interest to discover whether hon. Members will be able to shed more light than I have been able to do on this very vexed question.
Then there is this difficulty—and it is a psychological one. If you tie families I together in a house by a legal enactment, a most unhappy atmosphere exists. I hope that the existence of the Act, and the operation of one or two decisions by tribunals, will have the necessary effect upon rents, and that we shall not have to resort to it in many instances. Experience has taught us in this country that when one or two decisions are given, citizens usually adjust their conduct accordingly. I hope, therefore, that the circumstances which some people have envisaged will not arise and that we shall not have

decisions by tribunals followed by evictions. But I shall listen to the arguments with great interest, and if they offer some kind of protection and are sufficiently wide, the Government are prepared to consider the matter in the Committee stage. Hon. Members will appreciate I that we are dealing with a piece of territory which is comparatively uncharted; and where you are trying to deal with the relationships of people living in the same household, it is a very dangerous thing to tie them together under a statute.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Does not that difficulty already apply to unfurnished lettings?

Mr. Bevan: That is a separate matter, and unfurnished lettings come in here, too.

Mr. Silverman: I was referring to the difficulty of two people being tied together. It already applies to unfurnished lettings, to a room let unfurnished.

Mr. Bevan: It has also been suggested that the penalties under the Bill are rather harsh. The penalties under Clause 8 go up to £100 or imprisonment for six months, or both. I would remind hon. Members that we are really trying to protect our own fellow-citizens against a form of exploitation which is extremely injurious in many instances. Some of these people—I do not say all of them—have developed anti-social habits. It is bad enough for this country to lose, as we have lost, hundreds of thousands of homes by enemy action, but it becomes intolerable when the plight of their fellow-citizens is exploited by harpies who batten upon them, as they have sometimes done in London and the big cities. Therefore, where this anti-social conduct is discovered, it is necessary to protect the victims. It must be understood that, in any case, the penalties cannot operate until a tribunal has fixed the rent and the offenders have tried to get around it and fix a higher rent. Furthermore, a £100 fine will not matter very much to some people who let some of those expensive apartments in London. A fine of £100 to them is neither here nor there. Therefore, when they offend, they might pay the fine easily. During the war we discovered a lot of people with plenty of money in their pockets for whom to pay a fine was not a difficult thing; and the


way to deal with such anti-social conduct was a term of imprisonment. I ask the House to bear this in mind when considering the question of fines and imprisonment under the Bill.
As I said, we have had experience of the operation of this Bill in Scotland, and, on the whole, the results have been satisfactory. A considerable body of experience has been accumulated which we hope to use in England. It is not the first time Scotland has shown the way. The administration will be watched very carefully. It is much more a matter of administration than of actual legal enactment, but I hope the consequence of the House passing this Bill into law will be to help to protect hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens this winter, when otherwise they might be the victims of what has become, in some circumstances, mercenary exploitation. The House will note that, at the end of 1947, the Measure will die. This is my own estimate—perhaps vague—of the period when the worst housing stringency will have ceased to exist. If, therefore, this Bill, when it becomes an Act, does its duty for two years, I am sure that everybody will be satisfied and if by that time—by the end of 1947—everybody has a home in which they can live without fear of the rack-renter, I am certain- that hon. Members opposite will be as pleased as we shall be; on this side of the House.

Mr. Bowles: Will the proceedings before the tribunals be in public? Will the Press be there, or will the only knowledge of their decision be when the changed rent is registered with the local authority?

Mr. Bevan: It is, I think, entirely a matter for the regulations, but the point will be borne in mind.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Willink: I have very little complaint to make with regard to the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman. Except for one characteristic and parenthetical observation at the beginning of his speech, and one remark at the end, which I thought rather optimistic, I was in agreement with the great bulk of what he said. This is a Bill dealing with a matter which we all agree needs, in the present great housing shortage, to be dealt with by legislation of some kind. I say, at once, that it is

not a Bill the Second Reading of which my hon. Friends or myself will oppose. We accept the unanimous opinion of the Ridley Committee, which perhaps I might be allowed to quote. They said:
We are satisfied that the existing powers are inadequate to control the rents of furnished lettings effectively.
But we do want to improve the Bill in certain respects and I hope that my observations and criticisms will be taken in the spirit in which they are intended. They are intended to be constructive. Unless I am quite wrong, some rather serious flaws might arise in the working of this Bill. I give this general blessing to the Bill in spite of the fact that, in my opinion, this is a subject matter in which controlling the ordinary way and in ordinary times would be objectionable. Conditions of furnished lettings are so infinitely varied that it is very difficult to conceive of a statutory manner of controlling them which can ever be regarded as satisfactory.
I am very glad to find that, as I understand the position, the Government, in spite of a certain tendency towards controls, take the same view of this matter, because the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he hopes the duration of the Bill will be no more than appears on its face and will not operate beyond 31st December, 1947. I thought he was a little lighthearted about the fact that, as someone had said to him, there will be great disparity between the attitudes of various tribunals. It is right to say that local knowledge and local understanding of the facts and circumstances would probably give rise to what would only appear to be disparities, but, on the other hand, it may well be that there will be real disparities and, for instance, that there will be a very different attitude to what is a fair rent in two adjacent seaside towns. That will not be avoidable under this machinery and would be an unfortunate and unfair disparity. There is no co-ordinating body above the tribunal. I do not complain about that. There is no appeal. I do not complain of that, but it is just an example of the way in which this sort of legislation is very difficult to draft in a really satisfactory way.
This is, of course, a very close imitation of the Scottish Act which was passed into law towards the end of 1943. There was no corresponding legislation for


England, and I imagine that what was in the mind of my predecessor—because it was in his time—and the Government of the day was that it was most important in England, where there had been an even greater reduction of housing accommodation than in Scotland, not to dry up in any way the supply of furnished lettings. It is most important that our housing accommodation should not be diminished at all through people feeling that there is now a system which would alarm them and deter them from lettings which they would otherwise undertake, that there was a form of control, which they could reasonably think might work unfairly upon them or might involve them in being dragged before tribunals possibly a very great distance from where they are living themselves—a point on which I will touch later.
I would say myself that I agree with the conclusion reached by the Government that it is right not to attempt to give statutory security of tenure. But this is not only a close imitation of the. Scottish Act. I feel that it is a slavish imitation of that Act, and I am a little surprised that the Government have not been able, as the Ridley Committee were able, to draw certain lessons from the Scottish experience after these two years. The right hon. Gentleman has been unimaginative on this occasion. Apart from two small matters, two very small matters, I think there are no changes. There is this change, quite technical really, that in this English Bill the local authority will maintain the register whereas in Scotland the tribunal maintained the register. And one recommendation made by the Ridley Committee has been accepted, namely, that if the applicant withdraws his application the tribunal is not bound to go on to fix a rent. That is a small matter. But on the Ridley Committee there were no fewer than seven Members of this House. Four are still with us: the Noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson), my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key), and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary now responsible for housing for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan). They visited Scotland and, as a result of the experience that had been gained, they drew certain conclusions which have not

been accepted or recognised in the drafting of this Bill.
Now may I shortly refer to one or two examples of lettings which will come within the Bill, which bear out my point as to the great variety of lettings that will come within it? In the first place there is a very large class, particularly in London—and the right hon. Gentleman was very right, if I may say so, in laying particular stress on London—of commercial lettings, for example, fiats furnished, or if not furnished, provided with services such as hot water, central heating, lifts, and the use of a lift and the services of a lift man, and matters of that kind. These may be for a period of years—a five years' tenancy perhaps. That is just a type of letting, and the longest type that would come within the Bill. Then one gets the very typical example of letting a house or rooms at a holiday resort perhaps in the cheaper months and perhaps also in the more expensive months. A third class of case is of the very domestic kind where possibly, as quite a temporary measure, people think they would like to increase their income because they have a spare room or, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they may shortly be letting them to quite a large extent under a sense of social obligation.
I think that the main principle of the Bill is to establish a register of rents which is to be operative and effective as from the date of entry in the local authority's register. Here I come to a criticism which the Minister of Health anticipated, because it is a point on which he has not accepted the unanimous recommendation of the Ridley Committee, concurred in by his own Parliamentary Secretary, That is the question whether it should be possible for the rent, adjudged to be proper by the Tribunal, to be made to operate retrospectively as far back as the date of application should the Tribunal think fit. I imagine that there may be in London quite considerable congestion before a number of these tribunals. I feel it is likely that there may be two or three months, perhaps even more, before some of these applications are heard and determined and I feel that the unanimous recommendation of the Ridley Committee, including the two gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to whom I have referred, is really preferable to what is provided by the Bill. The Committee based their


recommendation on the suspicion that landlords might hold up hearings by being dilatory, but I would base it simply on the general principle that, when an application has been made, the Tribunal should have the right, in their discretion, to make the proper rent applicable as far back as the date of the application and no further—not that they should be under any obligation to do so, but that if they find that a really exorbitant rent has been charged for three months they should be free to make the reduction retrospective to the date when the applicant started his proceedings.
Then there was another considered and unanimous recommendation which has not been accepted by the Government in drafting this Bill, and I give these circumstances as an example of where I think this might apply. There are a good many cases where there is a furnished letting not on a business basis at all but where, to do a convenience to a friend or relative or somebody who is rather hard-up, whom one wants to help, a tenancy is arranged on terms very generous to the tenant and both parties are quite content with this; they are quite happy in the house together. They do not want to part; but something happens. The tenant ceases to be a rather hard-up person who deserves sympathy. The landlord thinks his tenant is paying too little and gives notice to increase the rent. Under the machinery of this Bill, as was noticed by the Ridley Committee, as soon as the tenant gets that notice he can take his application to a tribunal before the notice becomes effective, and the only rent the tribunal can consider then is a lower rate because it can only consider the contractual rent at the date of application.
Thus we find this extraordinary position tion under the Bill, that these tribunals are curiously bound. Once an application is made they have only two courses which they can take. They must approve or reduce. This is a case where, as I imagine, the Tribunal would like to say that it is quite reasonable that a man who was taken on a semi-charitable or very generous basis should pay a more normal rent now, but the tribunal is absolutely bound. It can only approve or reduce and it must do one or the other, although in the circumstances that I have indicated it may be that the landlord had acted perfectly fairly in saying that there

should be some increase in the rent. This is an example.

Mr. Bevan: That, of course, has been considered, as these recommendations of the Ridley Committee were all considered, but the view I took of the matter was that in these circumstances of acute housing shortage the one in possession of the house really can protect himself very well in this matter and usually does and the Bill is intended to protect against excessively high rents. You can envisage all kinds of complicated circumstances such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, but a Bill to be framed to deal with all of them would need to be a very ambitious Measure.

Mr. Willink: I agree that complicated circumstances may be envisaged. But I will give another example where it is most necessary, in the interests of general fair ness, to give the tribunal two additional courses of action. The tribunal should not be bound either to approve or to reduce. It should also be free to in crease and it should also be free to dismiss an application as vexatious and an abuse. It is a curious limitation on the functions of any tribunal that they should be so bound. Let me give that example at once. Let the House consider the typical letting of a flat with services, not furnished but with hot water and lifts and so on. And, as I have said, there might be quite a long-term tenancy. There are very many of these in London and when this Bill becomes law such tenancies will be somewhat anomalous because they will be within the Rent Restrictions Acts, which one normally thinks of as relating to un furnished premises, because in the circumstances I have mentioned the rent will not cover—here I quote the Act—
Board, attendance, or use of furniture representing a substantial portion of the rent.
They come within the Rents Restriction Act and they will also be within this Bill, as furnished lettings within the meaning of this Bill. It is a curious feature, though not necessarily harmful. With regard to tenancies of this kind, I would like to read what the Ridley Committee said in paragraph 81 of their report, because on this matter again they were unanimous and indeed said that this was a matter which should be given very high priority. It is a short passage, and if the House will forgive me I will read it:


Many flats comprised in blocks are let at rents which include a charge not only for the accommodation but for services provided and maintained by the landlord, such as porterage, cleaning, hot water, central heating, lifts and refrigerators. The cost of these services has, it is stated, risen substantially since the war by reason of increases in wages, fuel and other materials, but, on the other hand, there have been enforced economies due to the calls on manpower and the effect of rationing, which have resulted in the lowering of the standard of services.
The next sentence is in italics, and this is all unanimous:
"We agree that if the provision of these services in accordance with the standard agreed between the landlord and tenant involves the landlord in a greater expenditure than he had to incur before the war, he should be entitled to an increase in rent.
The amount of the increase must obviously depend on the services provided in each individual case. This is a question eminently suitable, in our view, for decision by the Rent Tribunals, who will be able to decide on the appropriate increase on the evidence produced to them.
Since the expenses of providing services may have been continuing for some time at a higher level, Tribunals should arrange to give applications of this kind a high priority"
That is the recommendation to which the two Parliamentary Secretaries to whom I have already referred set their hands. It obviously appealed to them as an injustice to those who have let these flats with a promise to provide these services. We all know that the costs of the fuel and wages have gone up very considerably since these tenancies were entered into, and when these landlords are at a point where, even though their tenants have been indulgent in the war years, they will expect those services to be fully provided, and will be in a position to bring an action against their landlord if they are not provided, I can see no reason why they should not be brought into this Bill, by the simple expedient of giving the tribunals the power to increase as well as to approve or reduce the rents.
There is another matter on which I should like assistance from the Government, because as I read this Bill, it takes no account whatever of the fact, which I think is known and agreed to by all of us, that there are many let-able premises for which a fair rent varies greatly as between one part of the year and another. If that is generally agreed,

and I hardly see how anybody can doubt it, and if the Bill makes no provision for that, and indeed would be embarrassing in relation to those circumstances, surely it is a very serious flaw which the Government will wish to rectify?
The scheme of the Bill is to register a rent, not as between the parties but in relation to the premises. In other words, supposing somebody has taken a substantial furnished house at £2 2s. 0d. or £3 3s. 0d. a week in an East coast town for the winter months, and has got that rent registered, that would be the maximum rent which would be chargeable for that house in June, July, August and September. It must be obvious to all of us that the only way to let a house of that kind is to charge something below the annual average cost in the winter and something above the annual average cost in the summer months. Surely, the remedy is that the register should only be binding on the parties? It should be a register of the proper rent between those parties. That would be a good guide to all who have to consider what is a fair charge in the future, but it would not be statutorily binding; it would not prevent what I suggest is the proper consequence, namely, that in a house the amenities of which vary between January and August there should not be this rigidity—

Mr. Bevan: Have I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman aright, because it is a very substantial and serious criticism? Do I understand that the rent to be fixed by the tribunal should be a rent as between the lessor and the lessee, and not a rent for the particular premises, whether furnished or unfurnished, and that, therefore, if the lessor and lessee cease to be lessor and lessee the arbitration ceases, and a new arbitration should take place every time?

Mr. Willink: No, there is no need for arbitration unless people are dissatisfied. All that is necessary is to protect tenants. If there is a tenant who is a tenant for three months and is paying three guineas, but thinks it should be two guineas, and he can persuade the tribunal to register that two guineas, it should be so registered, but four months later, when summer comes, the parties should be free to fix what is in their opinion a proper rent, and again, if the tenant is dissatisfied, he


can go and get a fair rent fixed for those premises. But how ridiculous that a rent that was fixed for January should be the statutory rent for those premises for all time.

Mrs. Jean Mann: On a point of Order, may I direct the attention of the right hon. and learned Member to the Bill. Under Subsection (3)—

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): That is not a point of Order. If the hon. Lady wishes to ask a question, that is another matter.

Mr. Willink: I understand the hon. Lady is referring to a Subsection which refers to a change of circumstances. I hope that the Bill does not contemplate that it will be possible for parties to apply for a new hearing because it is April and not March. Surely that is not what is meant by change of circumstances? It is very doubtful whether that would be held to be the case.
I have already referred to the type of case where there is a furnished letting at a low rent to a relative, friend or some one who is not well off. People will be much deterred from letting in those circumstances if there is a risk that that generous rent may be registered as the rent as those premises for all time. If there is an application under this Bill for that rent or a lower rent to be registered, it is mandatory on the tribunal. Once an application is made there are only two courses they can take. They can either register the existing rent or a lower rent. If that is so, no one will be able to let on any generous terms. It seems perfectly clear there ought to be the power to increase or to dismiss the claims.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this procedure should be reasonably informal, though I must demur to his suggestion that there will be more justice with a lay chairman than with a legal chairman. I would not suggest in this Bill provisions for legal representation or costs in the ordinary sense. But on the other hand there is a strong case for inserting in the Bill a provision that tribunals should have power to award reasonable personal expenses in proper cases. There are plenty of cases in which somebody resident in London lets a furnished cottage or a furnished house they own, perhaps in

North Wales or the Lake District. It would be very tempting to a rather unscrupulous tenant to say, "My landlord will never travel up to Windermere to fight the question of this rent. I will make an application. I do not believe he will come. I believe that he will settle rather than travel up at his own expense." It would be fair and just in cases in which the tribunal felt, having dismissed a claim, having refused an application, that it had really been a vexatious and unscrupulous use of the process of the tribunal, that they should have power to award the successful party something which might be denned as reasonable personal expenses.
There are two small points on the Bill itself to which I wish to refer. I am puzzled to know why, when the Statute Book contains, in connection with rent control, a deliberate change from the term "lessor and lessee" to the more familiar and equally accurate phrase "landlord and tenant," this Bill is so reactionary as to go back to that more technical expression. Finally, I am puzzled to know, as are some of my hon. Friends, why Clause 7 is so bare of any provision for the regulations to be made by the Minister being laid before Parliament. I should like an explanation of that. So much for the contents of the Bill, as drafted.
I wish to conclude with some more general remarks. I had the responsibility, with the then Secretary of State, for setting up the Ridley Committee just two years ago. The Committee worked very hard. As the right hon. Gentleman said, they reported last February, and their Report was published in April. Their Report recorded or disclosed many most unsatisfactory features in the law as it stands, one being its almost insane complication, and another the very unfortunate fact that by reason of the date of control or the date of building of a house, there are houses that are identical in quality and amenity with widely varying standard rents. The Committee made 47 recommendations in the summary of their recommendations, and on the vast majority they were unanimous. The Government, by now, should have been able to say more than that they have no Parliamentary time in which to deal with matters of this kind. The use of Parliamentary time is at their discretion, and I


am sorry to hear that there is no prospect, as I understand it, of the recommendations of this Committee being brought before us in legislative form.
Among them there is one most pressing issue, the omission of which from the scope of this Bill my hon. Friends and I most deeply regret— the question of the position of owners of houses who have let their houses and of tenants of houses who have sublet while maintaining their tenancies, as a direct consequence of the war, and who want their homes back again. On this the Ridley Committee were, by a majority of 13 to 2, in favour of action being taken. There is the man who for many years had been paying for his house and then went into the Army, and his wife and family quite properly let it because they could not do otherwise; they could not afford to maintain it on Service pay. Then, there is perhaps the man who was directed to work in some other part of the country, and in similar circumstances either let his house or sublet under his tenancy, maintaining his tenancy all through the war. I feel that such people deserve assistance to get their homes back, as the Ridley Committee, by this large majority, felt. As the law stands neither the thrift of the owner nor the circumstances in which he let his home help him in any way to get it back; it is simply a matter of the balance of hardship that will arise if he is given the home or if he is not given the home. I cannot but think that most people in this country would take the view that was taken by 13 of the 15 members who sat on the Ridley Committee, that something should be done, and should have been included in this Bill to improve the position of those who want to get back their homes which they only left because of the war.

4.59 p.m.

Mrs. Wills: I am speaking for the first time in this House, and I hope I shall have the sympathy of hon. Members. I believe this Bill is very useful in so far as it goes. It is full of good intentions, but good intentions do not make for happiness, when two disagreeing parties have to share one home. I feel that some security of tenure is imperative if tenants are to know where they stand. Security of tenure helps to make some kind of living

together possible, because both parties realise that they will have to live together for some time. I ask the House: Who are the people whom we hope to benefit by this Bill? I suggest that, in the main, they will be returning Servicemen, their wives and families, and the people who have been directed and sometimes redirected to work in various parts of the country by the National Service officer. These people are doing a job in the national interest for which we should help to make their lives as comfortable as possible. Where there is most demand for accommodation, there we find the problem is the greatest, and the price also is very often, if not exorbitant, at any late too high for the accommodation offered. I have had some experience of trying to get agreement on what is exorbitant, and it requires a lot of explanation and argument in order to reach any kind of agreement. I believe that the only way in which we shall know what is reasonable rent to be charged, is for the tribunals to fix the rent.
Price is not always paid in money. We get price in conditions of tenancy and in other conditions, such as no children, no visitors, no cats or dogs, no birds, no key with which to let oneself in if the landlord or landlady happens to be out—no privacy of any kind. These are prices which ought to be considered by the tribunals when fixing a standard rent for the house. Imagine the life of the tenant if objection is taken to the rent while the inquiry is going on. I suggest that it is during this period particularly that the tenant or sub-tenant needs the protection of this House. While I would not suggest that very long term securities should be given, I think a period of three or six months' security would give the tenant some feeling of possession of the home, and some peace of mind. Nobody, except those who have gone through it, can appreciate the average working man's experience of not knowing where he and his family are going to lay their heads in a day's time, a night's time or a week's time. I do not think the Bill will do what we want to do, unless we give some short security of tenure. If the decision is to reduce the rent, I think the security should be reasonably long in order to give the tenant some opportunity of finding somewhere else to live, because there are many people—particularly landlords and landladies, I am sorry


to say—who would obtain satisfaction from getting rid of the tenant who was taking the action. We, therefore, want this security to last for a period of time such as I have suggested.
I would like to give a case in point. I could give hundreds, as I have been the president of the Tenants' Protection Association for 15 years, and I have had many hundreds of cases to deal with, but here is one to illustrate the need for this security, at any rate for a short period. It is the case of a woman who had done something that did not suit the landlady who was letting the furnished rooms. She was an expectant mother and had been told "No children allowed." When the ambulance came to take her to the hospital to have her baby, the week's notice was put into her hand as she went out of the house. She had nowhere to return, because she was in hospital more than the week for which her notice held good. I do not suggest that all landlords and landladies are as bad as that, because I can give examples, if I wish, of many who have made real sacrifices in order to take in people during the scarcity of housing accommodation. Where tenants let rooms to other people, they need security of tenure against their particular landlords, because I find that many of them have in their tenancy agreements conditions of tenancy which stipulate that they shall not sublet rooms or take in lodgers.
I believe that in this Bill there should be power for the tribunal to say, "This is a case where the tenant of the house has the protection of this tribunal, "or of the law, such as it is, and that they should be able to dispense with any such clause in the tenancy agreement. I believe that this will not inconvenience the good landlords and landladies. I would like added to the Bill a Clause whereby the landlord or tenant of a house who has rooms to let can apply to the tribunal to have a rent fixed before the rooms are let, because I believe many people would appreciate the opportunity of having the accommodation valued in order that they might feel safe from any further interference or prosecution. It would be just and reasonable to allow this. I believe that security of shelter is one of the greatest blessings that we as human kind can have, and anything that we can do to secure this for our people will add to our blessings.

5.10 p.m.

Viscountess Davidson: I am very glad to be able to congratulate the hon. Member for the Duddeston Division of Birmingham (Mrs. Wills) on her very useful and excellent speech. She speaks from personal knowledge and experience of the problems connected with those who have to live in other people's houses, and I am sure we all appreciate what she has said. I hope we shall often hear her speak in the future.
I very much sympathise with the point that she has particularly emphasised—that of security of tenure. As the House is aware, our Committee recommended on the lines she suggested, and that has been omitted from this Bill. The House is aware that I was the one woman member on the Ridley Committee, and when we were appointed by the Minister of Health we understood that the matter was extremely urgent. The present position with regard to rent restrictions is chaotic; I cannot emphasise that point too strongly. If I may be allowed to say so—and I know the other hon. Members who were on the Committee with me will agree, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary who will later be replying—we worked extremely hard for what seemed to be a long period, but I can assure the House it was not a long period for the amount of evidence we had to hear and the amount of work we had to get through. During the time that we were sitting, questions on rent problems were frequently asked on both sides of the House, and again and again, the Minister had to answer that he was waiting for our report. I believe the late Government intended introducing legislation shortly after we had reported. Therefore, I very much regret that this Government have not found it possible to bring in a very much fuller Bill.
We realise the difficulties of legislation on such an important matter; nevertheless, the Government have a certain period of time lying ahead of them, and they should have been able to introduce a Bill covering the whole of this extremely important problem. I particularly regret that the recommendation which we made with regard to people who, through no fault of their own, have had to leave their homes and go away either into the Services or on work connected with the war,


should not receive the priority treatment. I am a little afraid that there is a certain prejudice rather than fairness shown here, and I believe the Government will regret that they have not found it possible to include some form of legislation, if not to cover the whole ground, at least to meet this particular problem. It is one which will be growing day by day as the men and women come back home from the Services.
The present Bill, as we all know, is based on the recommendations of the Ridley Committee, and is really framed on the lines of the Scottish Bill with certain omissions. I want to stress the importance of giving the tribunals definite powers to raise rents if they think necessary. That would not be giving an unfair advantage to the owner of a house; it would be giving fair treatment, and it would be giving to the tribunal what I believe they themselves need. It is as a result of having studied the working of this Bill in Scotland that we made some additional suggestions. The House will realise, as the Minister has stated, that this Bill is a forerunner of others. Former Committees set up to examine rent restrictions before now have often discussed setting up tribunals, but they have never agreed that these were workable. We on the Ridley Committee believed that tribunals could deal with the many problems in connection with rent restrictions, and recommended their use. If they are now successful, then they will be successful in the future. Their success depends on their personnel and on the way in which they do their work. They must carry the confidence of the country if they are to do their work properly. The choice of the personnel rests with the Minister. It is not a question whether Mrs. Jones can pay such and such a rent, or whether Mrs. Smith should charge it. The decision of these tribunals must be based on justice. This is extremely important. They must be based on what is right, just and fair according to the facts that come before them, and not according to the hardship of one side or another.
I am very glad that the Bill will cover all kinds of premises. We shall very naturally welcome the day when a Bill of this kind is no longer necessary, for it will mean that the supply of accommodation has caught up with the demand, but

we realise that in this very real emergency some Bill had to be passed and something had to be done. My own fear, and it is obviously shared by the Minister is that the source of supply may dry up. That is a fear that we shall have to face. Time can only show what will happen. I want to emphasise that the most important points are the choice of the personnel of these tribunals and the way in which they interpret their duties. May I once again repeat that they should be allowed to recommend decreases of rent, that rent should stand as it is, or that rent should be increased. I believe the Bill can be of real benefit to many people as long as those who serve on the tribunals are people of the highest integrity, that their findings are entirely fair and impartial and that they themselves are given these extra powers.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: I ask the indulgence of the House in making my first contribution to its deliberations. My justification for participating in this Debate is that I have had some little experience of matters connected with the Rent Acts. It is common ground that the Measure is rather overdue. It deals with the evil of profiteering in furnished premises. As has already been pointed out there has been a Scottish Act in existence for some time. Why that Act was not applied to England I do not know, since the evil existed clearly in England in much the same way. There is some justification in the criticism that the Bill shows a slavish adherence to the provisions of the Scottish Act. I have looked at the Scottish Act, and I can see only two differences between it and the provisions of the Bill. The first difference is very curious. Under Section 7 of the Scottish Act, the punishment for an offence is a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for six months Under the Bill the punishment for an Englishman is apparently to be a fine of £100 or imprisonment, or both. Whether that difference is because the Government think that a Scotsman will take a more serious view of having to pay £100 than the Englishman I do not know. The reason for the difference does not seem to be very apparent.
The only other difference is that under Clause 9 a local authority has the power


to institute proceedings and nobody else, whereas in Scotland any Scotsman who suffers can bring proceedings. Why a Scotsman can be trusted in this respect and not an Englishman I do not know. My respectful submission is that this matter ought to have been thought out anew in regard to England. The fact that the Government have followed so closely the system set up in Scotland has resulted in the setting up of tribunals. Why is there a proposal to set up tribunals here? It must not be forgotten that in this country we have a judiciary that is second to none. We have well-tried, independent county court judges who are able, experienced and impartial, and who have a great knowledge in particular of Rent Acts matters. What is the objection to placing a matter of this kind, a question of decision in regard to the amount of rent in furnished premises, before a county court judge? I know it might be said that the Ridley Committee recommended that tribunals should be set up, but that suggestion related to matters connected with the overhauling of the Rent Acts and not particularly to furnished places. Moreover, the Minister of Health said that this Measure would be at an end by the close of 1947, whereas we know that protection under the Rent Restrictions Act will go on for many years thereafter. Why, in those circumstances. I do we not take the simple course of referring these matters to a county court judge?
If it is said that the county court Judges have too much to do, I would remind the House of the provisions relating to workmen's compensation. The county court judges will at some future date no longer have that class of work to do. The result is that county court judges will have the time to deal with matters of this kind. My submission is that if we think of the matter in a simple way, as of a contract made between lessor and lessee, or landlord and tenant in regard to a house, fixing what the amount of the rent should be, a simple complaint could surely be made to a county court judge and he, with his great knowledge and impartiality, would be able to deal with the matter and come to a decision.
Under the Scottish Act there is no appeal, and there is no appeal under the Bill. If the whole matter were referred to the county court there would be no appeal, except on a question of law. If

the Government thought that the Bill ought to be restricted in regard to appeal, a simple Measure saying that the decision of the county court was final would have been sufficient. My objection to this part of the Bill is that there is no necessity to set up tribunals, with an army of officials and with more expenses, all, I submit, entirely unnecessary. It is largely because this matter has not been thought out as relating to England rather to Scotland and that the Minister of Health has slavishly followed the provisions of the Scottish Bill, that we are to have the tribunals set up.
There is another objection. The fact that these tribunals are to be set up is contained in Clause 1. If we look at the wording of the Clause we shall see that it begins in this way:
Where, as respects a district consisting of the whole or part of the area of a local authority, the Minister of Health…is satisfied on' representation by, or alter consultation with, the local authority that it is expedient that the provisions of this Act should have effect in that district, he may…
In other words, before the application of the Bill the Minister has to consult with the local authority, or there has to be a representation made by the local authority. Why? Why should the local authority intervene in the first instance? Why is it necessary that the Minister must consult them? This evil in regard to furnished houses exists not only in London but all over the country. It may be, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that it does not exist to the same extent in other parts of the country, but is it suggested, if you have one case of perhaps extreme profiteering in a rural district, that the case should escape the decision of a tribunal merely because the Minister cannot set up a tribunal except by representation or consultation with the local authority? If my suggestion of the county court judge were adopted, we should not want those representations, or consultations, or tribunals. We should need only a simple Clause in the Bill saying that in any case of furnished premises the tenant might apply to the county court judge complaining about the matter and asking for it to be dealt with. It does not do away with the Register or with the local authority carrying out the provisions of the Bill, but we should save expense, officials and delay and we should get the matter dealt with in a simple and expeditious way.
I would add my protest at there being nothing in the Bill about eviction. It is all very well for the Minister to say that powers will very shortly be given to local authorities to come in and take these premises if the landlord evicts the tenant, but we know, human nature being what it is, that if a tenant takes a landlord to the court and makes a complaint, it is a hundred to one that the tenant will receive notice to quit, and out that tenant will go. It is no satisfaction for the tenant to know that he has got the amount of the rent nicely set out in the Register, while he himself has been nicely set out in the street. It would be the simplest thing in the world to insert a Clause in the Bill dealing with eviction.
It might be that the grounds already in existence in the Rent Restrictions Acts on which possession could be obtained might have been made applicable or, as an hon. Member has already said, the period of six months might have been put into the Bill as some security of tenure. Whatever it was, some sort of protection ought to be given. We do not want to get an evil dealt with under the Bill merely with the result that the tenant who has registered the grievance has been thrown out into the street.
I should like to deal with one or two other points. Clause 2 contains a reference to payment and consideration, which includes payment for the use of furniture or services. The Interpretation Clause does not define "furniture" or "services." It is true that the term "services" is to include
attendance, the provision of heating
and so on, but nowhere are the terms actually defined. That raises a very serious difficulty. Suppose there is some linoleum on the floor or some curtains. Suppose the porter merely brings up the coal. Is that "service" within the meaning of the law? Does the Bill mean that however little the furniture and however small the services it gives a right to complain?
I suggest that having regard to the difficulties and complexities under the Rent Restriction Acts, it is essential that something should be said in the Bill to give the meaning of "furniture." That is all important. In the Rent Restriction Acts there is already a provision for protection in respect of the furnished premises which

are within those Acts. I did hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) say that, whether all premises that were furnished came within the Rent Acts or not, they came within the Bill. I respectfully suggest that that is not so. My reading of the Act does not show that that follows clearly from its provisions. Are premises within the Rent Restrictions Acts within this Bill? I think it ought to be made quite clear whether this Bill applies not only to premises outside the Rent Restrictions Acts but to premises that come within it. I offer these observations to the House, and respectfully submit that they are matters which might be dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to reply.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: It is with a mind unfurnished with a great deal of experience of the customs and moods of this House, that I venture upon this my maiden effort, and crave the indulgence of the House for my few comments upon this Bill. A few months ago a woman came to see me. She was a widow with three children, and her total income amounted to £3 15sa week. She was occupying two furnished rooms with the joint use of the usual household conveniences, for which she was paying a rent of £2 5s. per week. It is safe to say that the value of the furniture of those rooms at 1939 prices was not more than about £40 or £45. I suggested to her that this was a suitable case to be reported to the Public Health Committee for action under Section 10of the 1920 Act, and she said, "No, because if you do that, I shall simply be thrown out on to the street. So please do not take any such action upon it at all." She said she had spent many weeks going round from place to place trying to find a landlord who was willing to take her children in, and she did not want to make the same interminable round again.
Here is another case of a rather different nature. The tenant in this case was paying £2 15s. for a furnished house under a written agreement in 1943. In 1944 the rent was increased to £3, and in 1945 to £3 5s. The furniture was of moderate value, not too good and not too bad. In May, 1945, the landlady decided that she wanted somewhere to


live, so she came back to the house and occupied half of it herself, in consideration of which the rent was reduced to £2 15s. per week. In that case again the tenant said that he did not want to do anything about it because there was a family of five and they had nowhere to go, and no prospects of getting anywhere. I want to ask the Minister of Health what comfort, what consolation and what aid does this Bill bring to these people, and I put it to him that without some security of tenure this Bill has no teeth. It has no teeth because it is no use asking tenants to report cases of extortion to the local authority, or to go to the tribunal and take action, when they know they will be turned out. It is no use telling the tenant, as the Minister is suggesting, that if he is turned out the next tenant will get the benefit of the reduced rent; that offers no protection to him, and unless people are prepared to report exorbitant rents to the authorities this Bill will not go very far.
I, like many other hon. Members, have read the Ridley Report, which is against general security of tenure. The reasons it advances are reasons of some substance, yet I do not think they are entirely valid. For instance, the Minister today said that it is a difficult and an awkward thing when you get two households tied together in the same house. But that has already happened in tens of thousands of cases; there are already houses divided into unfurnished apartments where the landlord and the tenant are tied together under the Rent Acts and where people have to live together. No doubt in many cases it is very difficult, but they manage to carry on. So far as furnished lettings are concerned, the worst and most exorbitant cases in my own experience are not those of people who let rooms in their own houses, they occur in connection with what I might call the professional furnished room letter, who lets rooms for a profit. It would be quite possible to deal with them entirely separately under theBill. There is no reason whatsoever why general security of tenure should not be granted—making an exception, if you like, for the person who lets rooms in his own house, because I agree entirely that it is desirable to encourage that as much as possible at the present time.
We have had no explanation of why the restricted form of security of tenure

suggested in the Ridley Report—that is, three months security after the tribunal has given its arbitration—has not been adopted, and I hope the Under-Secretary will deal with that in his reply. There is one further point. Hon. Members have all heard of the Probation of Offenders Act, under which the criminal law extends its clemency to first offenders and frequently let them off with a caution. Here we have a Bill which constitutes a Probation of Offenders Act for landlords, but in fact it goes further than any Probation Act in existence. What it says in substance is that if a landlord robs a tenant for two years and is brought before the tribunal and found out, he is not punished, he is simply told that he must not do it any more and, what is more, he keeps the proceeds of his robbery. I can see no justification for that at all. Of course it is true and I want to put it perfectly fairly—that if the tenant is sufficiently courageous, and foolish, and is not short of money, he may be able to take proceedings, which the Act still allows him to do under Sections 9 and 10 of the 1920 Act. I do not think he is bound to get very far, because I do not think that anybody knows what those two Sections really mean. Accordingly, the tenant is left without adequate protection, and will not have very much more under this Bill.
It is said that this is an emergency Bill to deal with a special emergency, and it seems to me that there are certain other matters which should also be dealt with under emergency conditions. There is, for instance, the question of repairs—a most urgent problem in the City of Birmingham, as many of my colleageues will tell the House. Existing powers for dealing with recalcitrant landlords who will not do repairs are quite insufficient. I think it is a pity that something cannot be done at this moment, as an emergency Measure before the main Bill is introduced, to deal with this particular and pressing problem. This may be only an emergency Measure, but the fact remains that under this Bill it will be a very long time indeed before a majority of the tenants occupying furnished apartments are protected. Let us see what will happen. In the first place the Minister has to declare the area or district under Clause 1, after consultation with the local authority. We do not know how long that is going to take. Even so, not all the houses in the area become protected. They do not be-


come protected until each individual house has come before the tribunal and has been dealt with. Then, for the first time, it becomes in the proper sense of the term a protected dwelling, in the same way as, for instance, dwellings under the Rent Restrictions Act are protected. I do not know how long that is going to take; it may take months or years, it all depends on the rate at which the tribunal makes adjudications.
I do not think that this is satisfactory, and if I vote for this Bill it is simply because it does, after all, create the machinery which a better Bill in due course will be able to use. There is one point I should like to make. The right hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) mentioned the question of the alteration of the grounds for obtaining possession which is dealt with in paragraph 89 of the Ridley Report. I want to say that in this respect I am in entire agreement with the minority report, if as a maiden speaker I may associate myself with two gentlemen who have been translated to the Olympic heights of Ministerial rank. It is my experience, not only as a public representative on the local authority but as a lawyer practising in the courts, that in the vast majority of cases landlords who want to obtain possession of their house would be able to say that they left their house for purposes connected with the war.
I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that that argument would be advanced in 80 or go per cent, of the cases. What is going to happen? We shall see this sort of case—perhaps a childless couple or maybe a single man or woman will come along and say that the family with four or five children—perhaps an ex-Service-man, or perhaps the family of a man at present serving abroad—shall be turned out of their house. The court would have no discretion in the matter whatsoever, and. would be obliged, if this particular section of the Ridley Report were put into operation, to turn the family out. I can only say that I can conceive of no Measure which would cause such a great amount of hardship in this country at the present moment. I might even say that there would be serious danger to public peace in this country if such a Measure were put into operation.
In my experience, in so far as justice may be stretched, the elastic majesty of

the law always tends to favour the serving man, and I am sure that county courts, in their interpretation of the great hardship clause of the Schedule to the 1933 Act, deal with this matter fairly reasonably and justly, always bearing in mind that even at present there is still some bias in favour of the landlord in that the onus of proof of greater hardship is upon the tenant. From my experience, I think that that is enough. In conclusion, I hope that the Minister of Health, conscious of the deficiencies in this Bill, will do something to improve it before it goes on the Statute Book, in order that those tenants who are subject to this extortion should receive real and adequate protection.

5.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: It does not fall to the lot of every hon. Member to have the privilege of congratulating two hon. Members on their maiden speeches. The first maiden speech was that of the hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). Stoke Newington is a very important part of this great Metropolis, and after listening to the very knowledgeable speech of the hon. Member, I feel that the housing problems of Stoke Newington will be very adequately put forward in the House. I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. Julius Silverman) on his very earnest and sincere speech. Hon. Members are always ready to listen to speeches that are sincere, even though they may not agree with the contents of those speeches. I would like also to congratulate the hon. Member upon being a representative upon the local authority in Birmingham. It is real public service to be a representative on a local authority in a constituency and then to have the honour of being returned to Parliament, as Member for that constituency, to play a part in Parliamentary affairs.
I draw the attention of the Government Front Bench to both those maiden speeches from their own back benches. We sometimes suggest that maiden speeches should be non-controversial in character, and I always understood that being non-controversial meant that hon. Members on one side should not offend hon. Members on the other side of the House. These two hon. Members on the Government side put forward some very shrewd criticisms which came very near


to being controversial, and I hope that the enterprise, initiative and courage which they have shown in putting forward those views will come to the attention of the Minister of Health when he reads HANSARD tomorrow.
I thought this Bill was to be a very non-controversial Bill, and I wondered how it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to produce a Bill that was non-controversial and perhaps rather dull. I must say that, after listening to his speech on a Bill the principles of which most of us support, I thought that when he came to diversity of views between Scotland and England, at any rate we had got down to the controversial part. Most of the speeches that have so far been made have been directed not so much to the objects in view as to the question how the Bill can be made to work in practice. Almost every hon. Member has pointed out that, although a certain thing might be intended, the Bill might have the reverse effect put into practice. Of course, a great deal of legislation does have the reverse effect from that intended. I well remember that Lord Runciman, who used to be President of the Board of Trade, once told me, when I was Member for Stockport, that the real trouble he would have in giving effect to an application I had made, which had to do with rabbits, would be that the niggers in West Africa would be deprived of their top hats, and that it was quite likely there would be a riot. Legislation sometimes has peculiar effects. I suggest that in regard to this Bill, it is not enough for the Minister to want to bring about a certain state of affairs; he must be sure that the Measure will bring about that state of affairs.
All hon. Members want to see profiteering stopped. With all the arguments concerning that I entirely agree. We have to consider this Bill from the point of view of seeing how it can be made to work. The first point with which I want to deal is this. We do not want to discourage people from letting rooms. We must make more premises available, and if in fact the Bill makes fewer available, it will not be a success. There may be a large number of people who, when they realise the heavy sanctions which there are under this Measure, will be frightened to let part of their premises or their

houses. I suggest to the Minister that in such cases, before a contract is signed, it ought to be open to the parties concerned to take the contract to a tribunal and say, "We are considering making a letting at this rent; may we have your sanction for this being a reasonable rent?" This would avoid frightening people who might very well be frightened by the provisions of the Measure.
The second point I want to put to the Minister is based upon the argument that was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink). I think his argument was overwhelming, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the matter. In the case of a very low rental, an application can be made to a tribunal, and as far as I can see from the Bill, the tribunal can either approve or decrease the rent. Obviously, in the case of a low rental, the tribunal would not decrease the rent. It will be obliged to register the existing rent, although in fact it is below a reasonable rent. This means that a tenant who may have premises at a very low rental will at once say, "I will have this registered as the rent, although in fact it is worth considerably more. "The result of this provision will tend to be to prevent lessors from making generous lettings.
I know of instances in my own part of the country where cottages are let at no rents. [Interruption.] I do not know why the entire Independent Labour Party, which usually sits close to me, has now gone down to the end of the Bench. I should have thought that on this occasion, when it is a question of letting cottages at no rent at all, they would have come quite close to me. I feel there is a point in the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon that the tribunals should have power to increase rents where they decide that such an increase is necessary.

Mr. Gallacher: We do not require tribunals to increase rents.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am obliged for that interruption. I am sure that in 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of cases, the hon. Gentleman is right, but there is a small number of cases where there are generous lettings. In those cases the rents are far below the values. This provision will prevent generous lettings of that nature


unless the tribunals have power to increase the rents in this small number of cases, although I agree that in the vast majority of cases it will be a question of the tribunals decreasing the rents. The third point I wish to make concerns the scope of the Bill. Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the very loose wording. It is very difficult to know what will come within the provisions of the Bill and what will not. I feel that the definition of the word "services" is far too wide—so wide that it is not, I respectfully suggest, a Committee point, but a proper matter to raise on the Second Reading. According to the definition, the word" services" includes any
facility connected with the occupancy of a house or part of a house.
How can any tribunal decide what those words mean? A "facility" might be a doormat or it might be a common entrance which was divided two feet inside the building. That definition ought to be made more clear; otherwise, no one will know what falls within the Bill and what does not. It is that sort of loose wording which creates uncertainty and brings the law rather into disrespect.
The qualifications of those who will sit upon the tribunals will have to be very high. The tribunals will have to judge the lettings of small houses, and I do not think that will be a difficult problem; it is something which reasonable and ordinary people will be able to handle. I can imagine the tribunals functioning extremely well in those cases. But they will have some very difficult problems to handle when they come to deal with more extensive flats and lettings. I think we are entitled to know from the Minister what he feels would be a reasonable rent for letting silver, silver plate, linen, perhaps a grand piano, and some masterpieces. We are going to throw a great deal of work on these tribunals, which I think will perform a most useful function where small lettings are concerned, and perhaps prevent any kind of victimisation through high rents. But they will get into difficulties over the variations in rent for houses or flats of the type I have mentioned. There may be flats in the same building where the difference in rent is as much as 100 per cent. I hope great care will be taken in choosing the people

who are to be appointed to these tribunals.
I suggest that here is a Bill which commands the approval of nearly every quarter of this House, but all hon. Members are worried about how it is going to work. The Minister will have to watch it very carefully to see whether it will really have the effect to which I have referred, and I also suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the speeches made in the Debate today should be read most carefully by him. All kinds of points have been brought out which might influence the Minister upon his future proceedings. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to introduce Amendments during the Committee stage to give effect to these very helpful suggestions which have come from all parts of the House.

6.2 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I welcome this Bill, and, if I have any disappointments concerning it, I share the feelings of a great many hon. Members that some of the recommendations of the Ridley Commission might have been adopted. I feel, however, much more strongly on the failure to deal with the purchase price of houses for sale. I notice that the Minister, in absolving himself from that duty, suggested that it was impracticable to deal with profiteering in the sale of houses. Yet he finds it practicable to introduce a Bill dealing with profiteering in rooms, which necessitates the setting up of a tribunal which shall judge the area and environment in which the house is situated, the amenities surrounding the house, the construction of the house itself, whether it is damp and dry and habitable, the furniture inside the house, the state of the carpets, the cutlery and blankets, and, in addition, shall assess, on a psychological basis, the particular relationship between buyer and seller, or, shall I say, between lessor and lessee. In other words, I feel that my right hon. Friend strains at a gnat and swallows a camel. Nevertheless, I welcome the camel. This plan has been exceedingly useful wherever it has been tried, and it has been tried in Scotland. It does require valuers, who are said, in the Morris Report, to be almost nonexistent, though every tribunal in Scotland finds that a valuer appears for the lessee, another for the lessor, and, very


often, the tribunal itself consults a valuer, and there has never been any trouble whatsoever in getting a plethora of valuers to judge particular furnished rooms.
We ought to emphasise that we do appreciate the great value to this country of the women who let furnished rooms. Many of them have been very fine, motherly creatures, who have put up with a great many hardships in the performance of their duties, and have always charged a reasonable price. They also, under this Bill, may become the object of suspicion by the population, and I, frankly, do not like it. The customer is not always right, and the lessee is not always right, either. The lessee, very often, can be a very great disturbing factor in an otherwise peaceful house. Nevertheless, I understand that the chief object of the Bill is to stop profiteering. The question of what is profiteering is left to the tribunal, who have all the facts at their disposal, but it should be noted that the tribunal's decision is final, and that there is no appeal against that decision. Therefore, the utmost care has to be taken in selecting the tribunal.
One hon. Member asked what is a reasonable rent. It is impossible to lay down definite principles that could be uniformly applied throughout England, and the Bill again places the onus entirely on the tribunal. I believe that one criticism of the Bill was that they had no power to increase the rent. Once the rent is fixed by the tribunal and is entered in the register, there is power to increase it. The right hon. Gentleman who made that criticism was wrong and could not have made himself fully acquainted with the Bill. In Clause 2 (3) it is stated that the tribunal shall have power to increase the rent payable, but only after it has been entered in the register. There are sets of circumstances, such as have been described, namely, increased cost of services or increased cost of refrigerators and so on, in which the rent can be increased on application due to that change of circumstances.

Commander Galbraith: May I intervene for a moment? I think the hon. Lady has not fully understood that point. The point was that, when the application was made, the circumstances had altered, and, therefore, the rent would have to be fixed with an

allowance for the increased cost. The second application would, therefore, be worthless.

Mrs. Mann: I think that, when two people enter into an agreement, lessee and lessor, the lessee has power to apply to the tribunal, and, at that juncture, it is true that the conditions are surely the same as they were when the agreement was entered into. At any rate, we take it that they were. There are some weaknesses in the Bill, the chief of which is that of the threat of eviction. Where we have had this operating, we have found that tenants could be protected by the Defence of the Realm Act, Section 85. It is now suggested that they may be protected by requisitioning, but we found that there were certain local authorities who were very reluctant to use their powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and it may be that there are local authorities who are equally reluctant to-use their powers to requisition the houses. After all, let us remember, in these cases, that we are enforcing the law against our own ratepayers rather than against the bird of passage, and local authorities are more prone to sympathise with the static ratepayer than with the bird of passage, who flits from furnished room to furnished room. Therefore, you have a real grievance.
After the tribunal has finished the job, what happens when the two women concerned go back to a kitchen? My right hon. Friend says "One would not push out the other for spite. "He has very little knowledge of what a woman will do. One woman takes another woman to court, and, unfortunately, newspaper publicity is given to all these cases. I think that, in many cases, which ought not to be so. Many a decent woman, perhaps because she charged is. more than the rest, becomes the talk of the little village for days afterwards, and, naturally, they feel that nothing can solve this grievance short of getting rid of the sub-tenant. It is very difficult to ask the two of them to share the same kitchen morning, noon and night. The architect is not yet born who can design a kitchen suitable for two such women. Very often the sub-tenant, we found, just quietly packed up, feeling, like Solomon, that
It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.


So they take their departure. I think the criticism directed to this aspect of the Bill is very solid. It may be that, if the lessee and lessor knew that if the tribunal was appealed to, their security of tenure would last, say, three months, it would give them a chance either to readjust their differences or for the sub-tenant to find new accommodation.
There is another weakness in the Bill. The Bill is an exact replica of the Scottish Measure. Word for word, it is the same. There has been a blood brotherhood in this that we in Scotland appreciate. It is very complimentary to us that England should follow us line by line, but there is just one line where the Bill departs from the Scottish Measure, and it is Clause 2 (2), where, in the English Bill, these words are introduced:
unless at any time before the tribunal have entered upon consideration of the reference it is withdrawn by the person or authority by whom it was made, 
In other words, the English Bill allows for a withdrawal; the Scottish Measure does not. May I read this from the Appendix to the Scottish Measure:
The Department's solicitor advises that it is not only competent, but, under the terms of the Act, obligatory on the tribunal to consider a contract competently prepared for them, and, in some cases, where a tribunal suspected that withdrawal have been induced by threats on the part of the lessor, or that the lessor was grossly overcharging, a tribunal might well consider it highly desirable that the case should proceed.
I think that weakness in the Bill might be eliminated, particularly in view of the fact that we find a tendency on the part of Scottish landlords to contract out of the Rent Restrictions Acts by letting houses partly furnished and so escaping the restrictions of those Acts. In other words, they put in a sofa or an old carpet and feel they have escaped from the control of the Acts. It might conceivably be that the tenant has been bullied to withdraw, and I think, in the circumstances, it is well that a tribunal should fix that rent for all time, even if the tenant has had to give up the tenancy. Under Clause 5 (3) the local authority has power to publish information, but is that power permissible or is it obligatory? I think that the publishing of information should be obligatory.
The hon. Member for Erdington (Mr. J. Silverman) thought that it might be possible and advisable to fix rents in

advance. I do not think that it is either possible or advisable. Tribunals usually take into consideration the value of the premises, the value of the furniture, and the amount of depreciation, and then they add a profit which might be anything from 10 per cent. to 33⅓ percent. Now in so fluctuating, the tribunal is often guided by the personalities occupying a house; for instance, there might be a wild set of people who would tread the carpets, burn gas and electricity at all hours, blare out their wireless into the early hours of the morning, and who are taking a great deal more abuse than use out of a particular apartment or set of apartments. Therefore, I do not think it is advisable to fix rent in advance. Many of us know of people whom we could not tolerate in our homes no matter how much money they gave us for being there, and so I think it is best to leave it to the tribunal. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look again at one or two of the weaknesses—he might strengthen the Bill before it goes forward—and I am sure it will not bring up all the problems that we anticipate. In Scotland, some of the tribunals have not sat for a year. The very fact that there is a tribunal that can be appealed to has acted as a deterrent all over the country. I wish the Bill Godspeed and the success that the corresponding Measure has been in Scotland.

6.20 p.m.

Lieutenant William Shepherd: I have one or two observations which I would like to offer to the House on this Bill. I have a particular interest in the Bill because, like many hon. Members on this side of the House, I have been searching, since I have been returned here as a Member, for some accommodation. I have gone the usual rounds of people who are offering to let furnished and unfurnished accommodation, without much success. I wish this Bill well and I hope that it will achieve its purpose, but I feel there are inherent weaknesses in it which will defeat the intentions of the Minister The Minister told us that if a tribunal gave an award which was considered unfavourable by a landlord, that landlord might be inclined to give notice to the tenant. He said, further, that would bring no financial advantage to the landlord, but, on the other hand, that brings precious little consolation to the tenant, and I most earnestly ask the Minister to try to strengthen the Bill by giving some


security of tenure to the tenant. It is not merely a question of the loss of accommodation which tenants will suffer. A more serious aspect of this lack of tenure, in my opinion, is the fact that it will prevent a large number of people coming forward to the tribunal to put their cases. If they believe they will be thrown into the street, in the present straitened circumstances, they will bear the evil of the high rent, rather than seek justice. So I implore the Minister to try to make some Amendment in the Bill.
Another aspect of the tenure is this: As soon as this Bill becomes law, the people who earn large sums of money, by taking advantage of the present unfortunate circumstances, will be seeing how they can get round it. One obvious way is to get rid of the tenant who is on a fixed rent and get a high premium from the next tenant who comes along. I am quite certain that will happen in a large number of cases, that it will happen secretly, and that the law will not be able to prevent it happening. If however we grant tenure to the tenant, then we shall to a large extent prevent this happening. The other point I want to make is on the question of the chairmen of these tribunals. To my mind the whole of the success or otherwise of this idea depends upon the ability of the chairman to present an impartial judgment and to have the confidence of the people in the locality. If the chairman were a member of the Communist Party who believed that all rent was immoral, he obviously would not please the landlord; if, on the other hand, he were a well-known local landlord, he might well not please the tenant. May I suggest to the Minister that he considers making members of the legal profession chairmen of these tribunals? For my own point of view I do not like the entry of the legal gentlemen into this 6phere, but I think that in this case, at any rate, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
I want for one moment to point to one other possibility of evasion which exists very readily for those who seek to evade the provisions of this Bill. It is that if service or food or board is given, this Bill does not apply. Now it is easy to imagine that, if that is the case, it is possible for people wishing to evade the Bill to grant some small service, such as

breakfast, which can be of a very nominal character, and so evade its provisions. I put that to the Minister as a possible means of evasion, because the success of this Bill will depend on whether we can counter those people who are seeking to evade it when it becomes law. In conclusion, I wish this Measure great success. I hope it will achieve the purpose for which it is intended, and that we shall see an end of the exploitation which is very rampant at the present time.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Janner: May I first take the opportunity of congratulating my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bucklow (Lieutenant W. Shepherd) for the very clear and concise statement of his case, for the excellent manner in which he placed it before the House, and for the very thoughtful view he gave in respect of the matters which he had in mind in dealing with this particular problem? I am quite certain that in his case, this House will always listen with considerable interest to all he has to say, and will welcome any contribution he has to make to future Debates.
I approach the consideration of this Bill with somewhat mixed feelings. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that. He is undoubtedly providing a remedy by this Bill for some of the injustices which were left untouched by previous legislation. I think we all agree that the rentals of furnished lettings should be put under proper control, particularly in view of the increasing number of such lettings. I would like the House, when dealing with the Rent Acts, to note the beautiful terminology that is used in the Acts themselves, because it illustrates how perfectly clear are the Acts and how every citizen can know all that ought to be known about them. The Rent of Furnished Houses (Control) (Scotland) Act, 1943, in the main, contains similar provisions to those which have been included in this Bill, and I think we can take it for granted, from the reports we have heard from time to time, that that Act is working comparatively well and fairly smoothly. The introduction of similar provisions for England and Wales is very long overdue.
I think by this time my right hon. Friend will have appreciated that there is a very strong feeling in this House that


protection from eviction should be given to tenants of furnished houses or furnished apartments. In addition to the arguments which have been used already, there is this point to consider, that if a tenant is ejected in consequence of the fact that he has taken proceedings before a tribunal, not only is he likely to be ejected from the house or rooms he is occupying but also he may find considerable difficulty in obtaining other accommodation. The landlord of the rooms or of the house to whom he makes application for fresh accommodation will almost certainly want to know what is the opinion of his previous landlord concerning his suitability as a tenant. To ask for a reference from a landlord whom one has taken to court or to a tribunal, and against whom an order has been made, the nature of which is objectionable to the landlord, is not a very easy matter, and I have no doubt that the reference in such a case, if applied for, would be very unsatisfactory.
After all the good things have been said that can and should be said about the Bill, those of us who follow the working of the Acts relating to the control of rents and the dispossessing of tenants are sorry that my right hon. Friend has not been able yet to introduce a much more comprehensive Measure. For about 25 years it has been my lot, almost daily, to try to unravel the mystery which lies hidden behind the wording of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts from 1915 to 139—and some which bear even more heavy names than that, as my right hon. Friend knows. There are still some nine of them in existence, apart from the Scottish Act. Surely, there has never been such a set of confusing Acts on the Statute Book of this country. Lawyers and laymen find themselves bewildered by the chaotic mass of words which they contain. Even judges—and I speak with great respect for those high authorities in the land—have often protested against the almost unintelligible state of the law on these subjects. Decisions are constantly given by Courts of Appeal of a varying nature. I would like the House to listen to what one of the learned Judges said. I was present when Lord Goddard, who is now a Law Lord and who was at that time a Lord Justice, stated in a judgment:
To expect the average owner of house or cottage property to remember the provisions

of the Rent Restrictions Act is to look for the impossible. I think there have been 12 altogether, and it is always necessary to consult more than one as the Amendments by subsequent Acts have been endless. It is too much to expect that he would understand or be able to solve problems which have puzzled the Judges again and again, and often led to marked differences of judicial opinion.
That is but one of the examples of expressions of opinion which have been used in the High Courts.
It is perfectly true that the controls imposed by the Acts, both in respect of rents and in respect of possession, have been of tremendous value as a protection to tenants. One very public-minded citizen who rendered incalculable service to his fellow men in this respect, Mr. Daniel Rider, who, the House will regret to hear, died a few days ago, estimated that some £300, 000, 000 had been saved for tenants in consequence of the Acts. I should like to pay a tribute to the memory of this great man of the people. That may have been an overstatement of the case, but, undoubtedly, many millions of pounds have been so saved. The main trouble lies in the fact that the vast majority of tenants and landlords do not understand the first thing about the Acts, with the result that vast sums of money have been and are still being overpaid by tenants in respect of irrecoverable rent, and, in some cases, landlords have not been able to recover what they would have been entitled to receive had they understood what the Acts really meant. The provisions relating to furnished let-tings have to be ascertained by considering Sections 9, 10, and 12 (2) of the Act of 1920, Section 10 (1) of the Rent Restrictions Act of 1923, and Section 3 (12) (b) of the Act of 1939, in addition to this new Act, in respect of which the Bill has been introduced. I would refer the House to Clause 2 (1) of this Bill. I do not know whether hon. Members have noticed the words:
…whether or not, in the case of such a contract with regard to part of a house, the lessee is entitled, in addition to exclusive occupation thereof, to the use in common with any other person of other rooms or accommodation in the house.…
One might think that these words are superfluous, but, in fact, they are highly essential, not because they ought to be essential, but because they are essential in consequence of the confusion which has arisen in the interpretation of the Rent Acts as they exist.
In the case of Neale v. Del Soto, the findings of the Court dealt a violent blow to the views which had long been held by practitioners in relation to the provisions of the Rent Acts. In that case it was held that to allow the joint use of a garage, kitchen, bathroom, lavatory, coalhouse and conservatory to be included with the use of two unfurnished rooms put the whole of that letting outside the provisions of the Acts. The Court held that the tenancy was not protected by the Acts, and, indeed. Lord Justice Scott, in the course of his judgment, said:
It was suggested, in the course of the argument, that if the County Court Judge's decision is upheld in this case, the result might follow that a letting of two rooms, together with the use, in common with the landlord, of, for instance, the lavatory would be outside the acts.
I want hon. Members to think about this, and I hope my right hon. Friend will think of this when he is dealing with rectifying the matter of control. The learned Judge added:
I am content to leave the matter to be dealt with if and when it arises.
It would seem that he was not prepared to give a ruling on the point, which means, of course, that he preferred not to state categorically that if part of a house is let, as so many thousands of parts of houses are let with, possibly, the joint use of a lavatory, the whole of the lettings are outside the control of the Rent Acts.
There are 10,500,000 houses controlled in this country under the Rent Acts, and the Judges may hold that if a tenant is entitled to use the same lavatory or kitchen as the landlord, the Acts would not apply to that letting. I should like to know what the result would be, in so far as protection is concerned, should such a decision be given in a Court. Surely, we have come to a stage where this chaotic state of affairs should be ended. Let us understand what the Acts really mean. Let us have some indication of the real position by means of a consolidation Act as speedily as possible. Let us have a proper understanding of the Law so that an individual will not be put to the expense of consulting lawyers and, even then, have to go to the Court of Appeal and discover that he stands in a very different position from that which he thought he stood in after having taken expert advice. My right hon. Friend says

that is going to be a difficult thing to do. I quite agree; it is not an easy set of Acts to put into a consolidated form and it will require some time to do so, but there is something which could be done, and which could be done speedily. I ask that while such a Measure is being considered, my right hon. Friend should send out instructions to local authorities so that, instead of some local authorities not fulfilling what rests within their power at present under the Acts—that is, to give the necessary advice and assistance to the public generally about the Acts—all the local authorities should be urged and, if possible compelled to give such information and advice as are essential in order that the ratepayers, the citizens, should know where they stand under the existing Acts.
I think the Bill itself is good, although it requires patching up, as many hon. Members have said already. I urge my right hon. Friend to put the general position right as speedily as possible. The Ridley Committee said it was a matter of urgency and they were right. Everybody realises that people cannot be left in the uncertainty in which they find themselves at present and will find themselves until the introduction of a new Act in a consolidated form. Something could be done in the meanwhile to enlighten citizens on their rights and obligations and my appeal to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues is to see to it that this is done speedily.

6.41 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Price-White: I feel that the House in general, and, above all, the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill, would appreciate a brief intervention at this stage. I would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to three points which, I believe, actively concern him as features of the Bill. The first is that of definition. All too long this House, and the draftsmen of Bills, in the most earnest of endeavours, have done nothing more than, eventually, to produce a veritable harvest ground for members of the legal profession. That has been due to inability to describe adequately and accurately in definition Clauses that which they sought to describe. In that regard I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 2 (1) of the Bill, which refers to payment for services, and the use, in


common with any other person, of other rooms or accommodation in the house, and also to the reference to services in Clause 11.
It would appear that the Bill, as framed, is capable of applying, virtually, to every letting of every flat. For, in fact, if a completely empty set of rooms provides the services of a hall porter, or the right to transmit gas and water pipes through neighbouring flats then, in my submission—and, I may say, in the submission of another body which made representations to the right hon. Gentleman—that would automatically make the letting of such empty premises subject to this Bill. In other words, there would be many tenancies, furnished tenancies for the purpose of the present Bill, which would also be subject to the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Act. Clause 6 makes it clear that where the Rent Restrictions Act and this Bill are in opposition, the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Act will prevail. I feel that the Bill ought to define more accurately than it does at present what, in fact, is meant by services, so as to make it perfectly clear to those upon whom the obligation of the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill will fall. We may well have the position of a standard rent of premises, covered by the Rent Restrictions Act, being fixed. This Bill will enable the tribunal to fix, equally properly, a lower rent, and the higher rent, therefore, provided by Clause 6, will not apply.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider this point, and to make it clear where the standard rent or the tribunal rent under this Bill will apply. Secondly, I ask him to consider a type of landlord who may be peculiar to these times, the man now in the Services, and who is, from what we hear and see, likely to remain in the Services for quite a time to come. When his turn came to report for service, it became necessary for him to let his house due, largely, to the somewhat indifferent rates of Service pay and allowances.
In fact his wife had "to go back to mother." He had to give up their house and let it, at what he thought was a very helpful and economic rent, to a person who, through no lack of patriotism, was remaining behind, merely because of the type of employment in which he was

placed. Is that Serviceman to come back and find that this Bill operates against him? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give very earnest consideration to making special provision for the case of the ex-Serviceman who comes back, and finds that not only is his house not available to him, but that, in the very difficult early rehabilitation period, the provisions of the tribunals under this Bill may operate against him financially—due entirely, at the outset, to his very patriotism.
Finally, I make a suggestion in regard to the constitution of the tribunals to be set up under this Bill. There is a tendency now to ignore the proper and useful qualifications of the members of the legal profession. I make no apology for being a member of that profession, because I observe that the party opposite, in the recruitment of the army which is to lead us in the way we are now tottering towards Utopia, are not afraid to pay regard to the members of that profession when they are recruiting. In this Bill and in the Industrial Injuries Bill there was a tendency to forget, or forgo—we do not know whether it is a deliberate policy or not—the undoubted qualifications of those who are legally trained. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any intention to reconsider that. Much more has come to the legal profession from those people who, at the outset, sought to disregard it, and, in the end, had to realise that the lawyer was very often a practical need for community purposes I suggest that the operations of this Bill would be facilitated for all concerned if the right hon. Gentleman amended it, so as to provide that one at least of the members of a tribunal should be an experienced member of the legal profession. It would not be a question of paying attention to what after all is a trade union, and a very strong trade union. Members of the legal profession are rightly trained for such work, and, in their work, as a profession, they would undoubtedly benefit the community under this Bill. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to introduce into the tribunals one member, the chairman, or even the clerk, from the ranks of the legal profession. I suggest to the House that that consideration ought to be taken into account in the further proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Orbach: I am grateful for the opportunity of addressing this House for the first time, and I thank hon. Members, in anticipation, for the courtesy and tolerance which I hope will be extended to me. After the series of speeches to which I have listened, I may be pardoned if my speech is uncritical. I wish to say something on this Measure, because it does, to an extent, affect the division which I have the honour to represent. The East Willesden Division was once renowned because of the waters of Kilburn Wells located on its borders. A hundred years or so ago, it became a dormitory suburb, providing bed, board and accommodation to the burgesses of a growing London, who escaped from their business warrens to the quietude of Cricklewood, Brondesbury, Mapesbury, and Dollis Hill, which lie in my division. Although it has its slums in the misnamed Carlton Vale, where it is not uncommon for six persons to live in one room, Willesden contains masses of well-built, suburban houses, accommodating in their 10 or more rooms two or three of the well-to-do; but the arterial roads that have given us ribbon development, and bad planning and the lack of building space in the London area have created on the Northern borders and to the West huge industrial establishments.
During the war, from these industrial establishments there poured forth aeroplane parts, precision instruments, tools and food; and, at the same time, more and more workers have been attracted or directed into the borough, as a result of these war conditions. The good residential property has remained good, but because of the fear of bombing, and of the bombing which actually came, voluntary evacuation caused many of the previous owners to leave. They subsequently let or sold the houses in which they lived, and, all too frequently, these houses were bought by people who sought to take advantage of the prevailing situation. The workers, needing the accommodation, without chattels, took the furnished rooms offered them, and paid, and are paying, in some cases, four and five times the normal rent, because of the provision of furniture, both inadequate and rickety. The bombing of central London and of parts of Willesden has accentuated his problem, and today there are many hundreds of people who will be affected

by this Bill, most of whom will, I am sure, come to thank the name of my right hon. Friend. Like other hon. Members, I have received shoals of letters on the question of housing, and, not least, on this aspect of it. Many people have been driven into paying large amounts, which are demanded because of their dire need for accommodation and a place to live. But the outrageous thing is that a large number of them are the wives and families of serving men.
One of the cases which came to my attention last week, concerns the wife of a sergeant in the Royal Signals. She occupies a room 7½ ft. by 10½ ft. in one of the houses in my borough. It is furnished. It has a table, chair, arm chair, chest of drawers and a Tate sugar box, which contains crockery—and that gives an indication of the type of furniture in the room. It has a table lamp, a bed and a gas ring, but frying is not allowed. Gas and baths have to be paid for separately. The service provided includes cleaning, occasionally, and, once every two months, there is a change of linen. For this "Englishman's castle, "which has to be seen to be believed, the sergeant's wife is charged 30s. a week. Cases of that nature are all too common in my division, once the salubrious neighbourhood of the very well-to-do. I am glad to pay that this Bill will limit, and I hope stop, the cruel and inhuman fleecing of people who have no homes of their own. From this Bill should emerge a useful safeguard against the scandalous exactions which are felt so intensely and intimately by the sufferers.
I am, however, disturbed at the defensive character of the phraseology of the final paragraph of the Financial Memorandum. I hope that tribunals as provided in Clause 1 will be set up by every local authority where there have been instances of this gross profiteering, and, if it is to the public good, I hope that the Minister and the Treasury will not boggle at the expense and talk about 150 tribunals and the expenditure of £50,000. I believe that the very act of setting up a tribunal will serve as a deterrent against overcharging, and that it may be a warning to those mean people who have been exploiting others worse placed than themselves in respect of housing accommodation.
This Bill, as other speakers have said, is not directed at the good landlords or


good landladies. Not only have they nothing to fear, but it should assist them in their calling, in getting rid of unconscionable people. Each case is to be decided on its merits, and I am sure that the local tribunal will consist of people well qualified to decide such questions as the value of furniture or the value of services. I am glad to see that any award under the tribunal affects the premises and has no relation to the tenancy or contract, that the introduction of a new tenant will not upset the award. Like other speakers on this side of the House, I regret that nothing in this Bill seems to assist the tenant who is being evicted. While this Bill is receiving its Second Reading today, one of my constituents is being placed on the streets and has nowhere to go. Unless our harassed billeting officer in Willesden is able to help, he and his family will have nowhere to sleep tonight. This morning I telephoned the billeting officer, and he was unable to afford any assistance.
One letter last week from o constituent gave particulars of a room occupied by the wife of a leading aircraftman in the R.A.F. On the plea that the room was required for the invalid son of the landlady, she found, on coming home from work one night, her clothes outside the locked door. She was able to get accommodation in the home of people as hard pressed as herself. The room has been let, not to the invalid son, but to a young couple, who, I am sure, are paying more than the 22s. 6d she was asked for the one room. Another of my constituents was commenting last week on the introduction of this Bill in Parliament to a friend. She was overheard by the landlady and she has received notice to quif. I suggest that such intimidation ought to be taken up immediately and I ask my right hon. Friend, with all the reservations he has made, cannot he, whose resource is such a byword with us all, devise some protection against eviction, and particularly such spiteful eviction, which is these people's greatest dread?
I am not going to find fault with the Minister for trying to remedy a great evil even though he does not do other things I want as much, or even more. The problem of inadequate housing is at the root of the trouble. There is no satisfactory solution except the provision of houses as they are needed, but I regard this

Measure as a real attempt to deal with a serious menace to the health and well-being of our people and I ask him to take whatever action he can to curb the activities of the vultures who are living on the needs of the nation. Let him, at the same time, keep his eye on other aspects of this problem. To deal with this and other matters, the Willesden borough council has suggested there should be a compulsory register of all empty properties, and that all persons who desire to let or sublet should register with the local authority. It seems to me that this would not only deal with the question of attacking gross profiteering, but will kill the black market—the pernicious system of premiums to landlords and gratuities to agents and hangers-on who learn of rooms to let. My right hon. Friend is being asked to receive a deputation, and I hope he will give this matter the most sympathetic consideration when is directed to him. 
At the same time I would remind him of the Question I put on the Order Paper of this House some weeks ago in which I pointed to the large number of unoccupied domestic premises over shops, shops which are let and shops which are awaiting occupation. Coming down in a bus to the House this morning I counted the number of such premises in one suburban shopping street as over 50, and if he would provide one of his inspectors to tour the suburban shopping centers he would be surprised at the accommodation available. May I, however, end these mild criticisms with thanks to the Minister, and assure him that this Bill, dealing as it does with petty meanness, is a human Bill and will have our whole hearted support, and that in whatever measures he may take to make shelter more available and adequate he will have active support in this House and the help and co-operation of the whole nation?

7.1 p.m.

Captain Gammans: It is always a pleasure to have the opportunity and the honour of congratulating an hon. Member upon his maiden speech and I have a special pleasure in doing so now in the case of the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. Orbach), because he, like myself, represents a North London borough, and both of us have some idea of the magnitude of this problem and, I am sure, are prepared to


Support the Government in any reasonable Measures which would tackle it. 
I support the underlying principle of this Bill but, like other hon. Members who have spoken, I think it could be improved, that is, if the Minister is prepared to listen to any criticisms from the House of Commons. There has undoubtedly been some exploitation, but I think the Ministers right when he says that on the whole the vast majority of people who let flats or furnished lodgings have played the game. There is, however, a minority, and that minority is not restricted to any one section of society, We are rather apt to talk about profiteering in luxurious West End flats, but there is a very bad "racket" going on in some of the working class districts. One of the worst instances I have heard recently is of a case of two rooms in a council house being let at the name charge as the rent of the whole house.
The object of this Bill is to deal with exorbitant rents in whatever quarter they may arise, but there is a danger, and I think the right hon. Gentleman realises it. The danger is lest we frighten out of the market that section of the population to whom the right hon. Gentleman made a special appeal the other day, those people who do not normally let lodgings but who are prepared to grant accommodation in the emergency which now exists. An old lady in my own constituency who found herself overcome by the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence on this subject came to see me the other day and said: "I have a couple of rooms, and I am prepared to let them although I do not need to, but I am terribly afraid of this new Bill, with its tribunals and all that sort of thing and of what might happen to me if I let those two rooms." We ought to be careful about that, because otherwise we may find the Bill may do more harm than good. 
There is an acid test of this Bill, and that is whether it will give justice to both sides. If it aims at giving justice to one side then not only will it be basically unfair, but it will do the very thing which the right hon. Gentleman does not want to do. I think the question of justice revolves round this one point of possible increase. Are we prepared to allow the tribunals to grant increases in certain circumstances? If they have the power to do so

It would be a check upon what may be a danger, frivolous appeals. There is a very real danger of almost everybody coming to the tribunal just to "try it on, "because it is not going to cost them anything. If a tribunal has the power to grant an increase where it thinks it is right to do so that danger would be avoided. 
There is another case that of flats with services. There are a good few of them in London that were completed and let for the first time after the war started. There is no standard rate in those cases. They were let in 1940 and 1941 at "blitz rentals" and it is not right that they should be excluded, as they are today, from increasing their rents. But I think the. Strongest case for allowing increases is found in the point rose by my right hon. and taught Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink). The Minister said that the Government would not have time to implement the recommendations of the Ridley Report, though, if I understood him aright, the Government feels that many of those recommendations should be implemented. He has an opportunity in this Bill to remedy what is admitted to be one of the greatest grievances which exist at the present time, the grievance set out in Section 81 of the Ridley Report. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that deals with those fiats which provide services and where the cost of providing those services has gone up out of all recognition on account of the war. The cost of coke, for example, is more than double what it was in 1939, and porters' ages have more than doubled.
There is a genuine grievance, admitted by the Ridley Committee, I think without a single exception, and if the Minister wants to be fair he can, by a very simple amendment of this Bill, include that section of the population. If I may say so to the Minister of Health, this point is an acid test of his own impartiality. Does he intend to be fair to all sections of the community or does he wish this Bill to be fair only to one section, because if he refuses to put in the word "increase" and to take this simple opportunity of granting justice to a particular section of property owners, then all who have invested their money in property will have to realise that so long as he remains at the Ministry of Health they will not get elementary justice?

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I am very pleased to have this opportunity of addressing the House for the first time upon a subject in which I have been greatly interested for a number of years. Among my other activities I have been a member of Acton Borough Council for some years, and chairman of its housing committee, and we have been gravely concerned over the number of complaints that we have received during a long period of time on the subject of extortionate rents charged to persons who have had to reside in the borough of Acton. Acton is a suburban borough of London, a place where there has been an intense concentration of war industries during the war years, and a large number of people have been attracted to the borough to work in those factories and have had to seek accommodation in furnished houses and furnished fiats. As a consequence we have found a tendency in our borough for the rents of furnished dwellings constantly to increase, and we have had many cases in which persons have been given notice to quit, and have had to quit, because they occupied furnished accommodation and were not protected by the law in the same way as persons occupying unfurnished premises would be. We have always found that we were unable to deal with these cases of persons who were charged extortionate rents. 
While I do not wish to burden the House with too many of the details in letters which I have received upon this subject— such as, I am sure, many, if not all, Members living in London and the Greater London area must also have received— I must ask the House to bear with me while I read this short letter, which is typical of many. This is a letter which I received a few days ago from a major in the Royal Artillery who has recently been released from the Forces. He writes:
Two weeks ago I returned, on release from Italy, and since that time have been vainly searching for a home for my wife and myself. Four days ago my wife returned from the Balkans, where she has been engaged on relief work. 
During our search we called at 18, Lancaster Terrace, Lancaster Gate, where my wife had shared a bed-sitting room with a friend of hers during 1940–41. At that time they were charged £ 2 10s. A week for the room and break fast and service. Now I was asked to pay, for a room on a higher floor, without any meals, five guineas per week. We tried to get some sort of reduction, but we were eventually told that the room had been let.

I consider that this kind of thing is no less than extortion by persons who are taking advantage of the situation. I feel so disgusted with the lack of any sort of control in this country, that I am seriously considering applying for a job out of the country, which would mean yet another parting from my wife.
I am reporting this matter to you in the hope that the Government will be prevailed upon to take firm action to protect the homeless from being robbed.
It would be true to say that the object of this Bill is designed to put an end to that kind of extortion. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is to be congratulated upon the promptitude with which he has dealt with this problem. He could make a very good case indeed for failing to proceed in this matter. The success or otherwise of the tribunals which he proposes to set up under this Bill will depend upon the commonsense and judgment which they will bring to bear upon individual cases. I hope that he will not hand the job of this tribunal over to the legal profession, because I believe there is a happy hunting ground for them here, if they are allowed too much control of a tribunal of this kind. When we come to deal with these exceptional cases where people are being charged extortionate rents, if the tribunal is to be successful, the Minister must have some regard to the facility for tenants bringing cases to the tribunal. As previous speakers have mentioned, the question of the security of tenure of the tenant who is making the complaint is important. There are many cases of illegal rents being charged today for unfurnished accommodation due to the fact that the tenants are afraid that they will be dispossessed if they take the case to court, and you have great difficulty in convincing them otherwise. Therefore, the tendency will be that a large number of people will prefer to suffer in silence, fearing that if they attempt to redress this grievance they may find themselves out in the street.
It has been the practice—I would not like to say it is common, but it is generally known—in some cases that the door has been locked upon persons who have been tenants of furnished premises, when the landlord wanted to get rid of them. It is a simple process to lock the door and keep them outside. While certain persons may have a remedy by going to court, the law is on the side of the landlord, and they hesitate very much to take cases like that to the court. Unless we can ensure to the tenant some reason-


able degree of security of tenure when cases are submitted to the tribunal, I believe the absence of that will cause a position to arise in which these cases are not remedied.
I suggest to the Minister that he might consider that, in all cases referred to the tribunal, there should at least be a period of three months or six months during which the complaining tenant cannot be dispossessed of the premises. I believe that that would help to bring a number of matters before the tribunal with which they ought to deal. It is most important that, if the tribunal is to function, there should be the widest publicity given to its purpose. There is a great deal in what my right hon. Friend says, that the mere fact of establishing these tribunals in the localities will have a salutary effect upon all persons engaged in letting furnished premises to tenants. I believe that as a result of the establishment of the tribunals themselves it will have a bettering effect upon these extortionate prices which are being charged for furnished tenancies. Therefore, I hope he will proceed as rapidly as is possible with the establishment of these tribunals.
I am not quite sure how the Minister proposes to elect these tribunals, but it is important that we should have somebody on those tribunals with knowledge of local circumstances. Whether he proposes that the whole of the members shall be recruited from local residents or come from outside the area, I am not sure but it is most important that we should have people serving on those tribunals who are aware of local circumstances and local conditions. If each individual case is treated on its merits in a commonsense way rather than by involving legal arguments about the worth of a carpet or the use of a piece of silver to the tenant and things of that description, I believe that the tribunal will be successful.
There is one point I would like to mention before I conclude. It concerns cases which have been mentioned by hon. Members on the benches opposite in which a rent might be fixed at an exceptionally low figure, because the persons concerned are not accustomed to making furnished letting and are not doing it to make money out of the job but are doing it out of a sense of being able to help their fellow men or some friend or near relative in a difficulty. I do not know whether the

tribunal, assuming a case was referred to it where the tribunal felt the rent was so low, would have power to dismiss the case. If the tribunal could have such a power that, where it felt there was no justification for confirming the rent or even of registering it, it could dismiss the case rather than have to put it on the books, that would to some extent tide over the difficulty. There are undoubtedly many cases where people are allowing their furnished rooms to be used by persons because of the great shortage of housing accommodation which exists particularly in London and suburban areas.
I think that the Minister could help in that way by a reconsideration of this matter. I hope he will not close his eyes to the desirability in some cases of an appeal above the tribunal's decision. There might be cases of that sort and I do not know what machinery could be proposed to enable appeals to be made when circumstances arose in which it would be advisable to take the cases to a higher authority for review. At least, if there cannot be an appeal to a higher authority there ought to be some provision for a review of the case. It is not quite clear what the "changed circumstances" mean in the Bill and if there is that facility and that power to review cases from time to time, in order to avoid injustice, I feel sure that it would be on the right lines and would help to make the Measure successful.
Once again I wish to express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health for the prompt way in which he has dealt with this question of rent of furnished premises. I assure him that the people whom I represent here today are glad that he has introduced this Measure. We wish him every success in the efforts he is making to reduce the rents of furnished premises to a more reasonable level, and to prevent the payment of extortionate rents to unscrupulous persons who are trying to take advantage of the fact that housing accommodation is short.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I am delighted to have the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on his excellent maiden speech particularly in that, in the somewhat unpromising field of rent control, he was able to put Acton on the map in a manner which presaged that he is


going to represent its interests in this House. We shall, I know, be very glad to hear him again. I did think that the hon. Member was getting near to breaking one of the Rules of the House when he entered upon the controversial subject as to whether or not lawyers should be allowed into this thing. Particularly did I think it somewhat controversial when he said that the law as it now stands was always on the side of the landlord. I can assure him that that is not so.
There are, however, one or two points with which I wish to deal in the Bill, particularly the matter that was referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) of whether or not there should be the capacity in the tribunal to increase rents. There appears to be some misunderstanding about this. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. J. Mann) asserted that there was a right to increase already in the Bill, in the case of those people who were rendering service such as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the provision of hot water, central heating and so forth. As the Bill stands, it is a completely mistaken belief that there is any power to increase in respect of such services. There could be no application for an increase, unless the premises had already been registered, and the first application for registration would be in the circumstances that these services were provided. Therefore, on the application for an increase for these registered premises there would, in fact, be no change of circumstances, the same services being supplied as at the time of registration. Therefore, the provision under Clause 2 (3) for an increase cannot apply to those cases.
On Clause 2 there is one matter which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about again. The power of the tribunal to approve or reduce rent is set out in that Clause, which says they may do so if, in all the circumstances, they think it reasonable. I really do think there ought to be some words qualifying this, setting out the criteria to which the tribunal should have regard because, at the moment, there is nothing to guide the tribunal on the circumstances which they should take into account. This, in one way, links up with the point of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). He pointed out that there was

no right of appeal here at all. I am not in the least anxious to create a right of appeal, because all this should be a fairly summary procedure, but I think the safeguard should be there because in the event of the tribunal making a completely fallacious decision there would be no protection and in this Clause as it now stands, if a tribunal were to make a completely baseless award as, for instance, in premises worth say 30s. a week the tribunal were to say that 2s. 6d. was the proper rent, there would be no appeal. They may do what they think is reasonable, and it does not matter what someone else thinks. If, of course, some criteria were set out then it would be possible, I think, to raise the matter in the courts in order that the thing should be put right where it was apparent that the tribunal had not had regard to all the circumstances, to which they should have had regard.
There have been many references to security of tenure. This is a difficult subject because, normally, the contract between the parties does not provide for that security, for instance where there is a weekly tenancy in which the tenant can be evicted at a week's notice, when it is clearly impossible to substitute an. entirely new contract and to provide that security. I do appreciate the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman is in over this matter but there is one suggestion I would put to him in this regard. I think we all feel some sympathy on this point of security of tenure, particularly when the matter has come within the purview of the tribunal, and the tenant and the landlord are at loggerheads and there is considerable difference between them. I think it is impossible to devise any means of security of tenure, but I think there should be a standstill from the moment the application is made to the tribunal, and I think the landlord ought to be prevented from evicting the tenant during that period, until the matter has been before the tribunal. I think that would be a safeguard.
There are one or two other matters to which I would like to refer, particularly one dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon, although I am not sure I am completely in agreement with him about this. He suggested that the rate fixed by tribunal should be only between the parties and should not relate to the premises.
That is to say, the tribunal should fix only the appropriate rent as between that landlord and that tenant, and as soon as that tenant went, and a new tenant came in, that fixed rate should not attach to the premises. I am obliged to say that I can see that making considerable difficulties. I do not myself feel that it is the proper way of dealing with the matter. It would only result in numerous resorts to the tribunal and would probably make the scheme unworkable. However, I have considerable sympathy with the idea, representing as I do a division containing two seaside resorts, one of the major industries of which is the letting of furnished rooms.
I do see that there is a possibility of injustice in these circumstances, such for instance, as the right hon. and learned Member for North Croydon suggested, the case of a tenancy during the winter months in December when rents are low in the seaside resorts and weekly rents of, say, 20s., 25s. or 30s. may be fixed by the tribunal. If that be done and the rent then attaches to those premises, when the summer comes round it is the time when both—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) assumes that all landlords belong to the criminal classes. Let me assure him, as representing many thousands of them in this House, that that is not so. These are people in quite a small way of business, who have a few rooms to let. Their winter lettings are uneconomic but they make, over the whole year, a reasonable return for their work. They let at an under-value in the winter, and, of course, increase the amount in the summer. It is only by the spread over that they arrive at a reasonable return for the whole year. It seems to me very hard that if a rent is attached to premises on a December letting, that should be the appropriate rent, certainly in seaside resorts, throughout the summer as well.
While not supporting the manner in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon suggested that that position should be dealt with, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look into it in some way. I do not think it is incapable of being met. It would be perfectly possible for a tribunal to fix a winter rate and a summer rate, or something of that sort. Just because a finding is made in the winter it should not be binding as

the summer rate. It would be equally unjust for the tenant if the summer rate, just by reason of the mere time that the application was made to the tribunal, were fixed at the summer rate. A person coming to those premises in the winter would be paying an inappropriate price for that season of the year. I hope the hon. Gentleman will look into that point and see if some means cannot be found of solving it.
Would the hon. Gentleman give us some explanation of the rather unusual wording of Clause 7, which is the Clause that enables the Minister to make regulations? Where that power exists it is nearly always coupled with the requirement of laying those regulations on the Table of the House, so that we may have an opportunity of seeing what regulations are made. That requirement is absent altogether from this Clause. The Minister may make regulations of which Members of this House will have no knowledge at all. I feel that the usual words should be inserted to ensure that we may keep an eye on any regulations being made under this Measure. So far as the question of penalties is concerned, I am bound to say that I do not regard them as at all excessive. A picture has been painted of people finding themselves unknowingly in the police court, by reason of the provisions of Clause 8. That could not really happen. They can only be summoned before the courts under this Clause when they have quite flagrantly exceeded the amount already registered. There is no offence until there has been a registration. Therefore everybody must know what the rent is once there has been a registration.
My interest in Clause 8 goes rather deeper. Power is given to the summary court dealing with the matter to order repayment of certain overcharges. The only overcharges which can be ordered to be repaid by the court are overcharges accruing after a registration. This Bill, as it now stands, will apply to contracts entered into whether before or after the passing of the Measure. We all know that particularly during the last few months there have been numerous cases of people having been driven to enter into hard bargains, which they would never have undertaken had normal supply and demand existed. People have been paying premiums and excessive rent. While this Bill is designed, and we all welcome it, to defeat that, it is rather unfortunate


that no means are provided to recover excessive charges that have already been made. As the Measure is to apply to contracts entered into before its passing there appears to be no reason why definite conditions should not apply, where appropriate, so that those who have already entered into contracts should be able to recover any exorbitant amount, or the excess over the reasonable amount, from a landlord who had, as I say, virtually-blackmailed a tenant into entering into an exorbitant contract. I ask whether word-to that effect could not be inserted?
I would also ask the hon. Gentleman to look at Clause 10. I think his legal draftsman has perhaps gone a little wrong there. It is a Clause to which nobody has yet referred, and makes a certificate receivable in evidence. It is rather an unusual wording because it only says that a certificate
shall be receivable in evidence of that entry in all courts and in any proceedings.
It does not say, as one would have expected, whether it is to be evidence of the facts contained in the register or evidence only of the fact that there is an entry. There are two well recognised forms of making a document admissible in evidence. This provision seems to have fallen between the two, and not to have made itself clear.
I think the question of board, which occurs in Clause 11 (3), will lead to considerable difficulties unless those words are clearly defined. As one hon. Gentleman has stated, it will lead to evasion, and this House does not want to pass a Bill in a form which will allow the will of this House to be defeated. It is quite clear that by ingenious devices of almost fictitious board this Measure could be defeated, in many cases. I ask the hon. Gentleman to fix some standard as to what amounts to board, so that evasion shall not take place. This is a Bill which I think is welcomed in all quarters of the House. I hope the hon. Gentleman will look into the points I have raised in order that it may be made a still better Bill.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley: This Bill again brings to the notice of the House the housing situation and its accompanying evils, which must claim our attention more and more as demobilisation increases

and less accommodation becomes available. I share the regrets of other Members at the limited scope of the Measure which we are now debating. The Minister has our support for the drive, and the new outlook which he is bringing to bear in the provision of new houses, but there are other aspects of the housing problem which must claim his attention in the interim period, before the provision of new accommodation eases the situation to any great extent. This Bill is a further example of the patchwork legislation on this most vital social question of the day.
I would, if I could, urge the Minister to review his method of approach. Are we to deal with housing matters partly by Acts of Parliament and partly by Defence Regulations? Is the Minister to secure the passage of this Bill now, follow it next week with Defence Regulations dealing with unused accommodation and the extension of requisitioning powers, and then come to the House later with another Bill dealing with another aspect of the housing problem which requires an urgent solution? I suggest that this method is unduly complicated, and does not make for easy administration, particularly for the hard-pressed local authorities.
The Ridley Committee were appointed on 25th November, 1943, and they submitted their report to the then Minister of Health on 21st February this year. This Bill deals with only one of the direct recommendations that were made, and no great thought has been necessary because, as other hon. Members have said already, it follows very closely the Act applying to Scotland. I suggest that the Rent Restriction Acts urgently require Amendment and consolidation on the lines recommended by the Ridley Committee. I ask the Minister, even at this late hour, if he cannot consider the production of a comprehensive Measure dealing not only with the rent of furnished houses but with the recommendations of the Ridley Committee and ancillary matters connected with the housing problem. Such a Bill would be welcomed by, and would facilitate the world of, the local authorities and those concerned with housing administration.
If this Bill must proceed—and I do, not minimise in any way the Minister's difficulties in introducing a comprehensive Measure—I would like to make these four


points. First, I hope there will be no undue delay in the establishment of tribunals which, I imagine, are required for the whole of England and Wales in spite of what has been said already about only applying them to particular districts. The Minister is right in consulting with the local authorities in the first instance, and I trust that the initial consultation will lead to continued collaboration between the local authorities and the tribunals. With the exception of the county councils, the other main local authorities are the housing authorities, which have a wealth of experience as a body and through their officers, such as sanitary inspectors and housing managers. The local authority can help the tribunal in its day-to-day administration, and the work of the tribunal will assist the local authority as it will deal with the rents of furnished houses, the power of the local authority being too inadequate or uncertain to solve problems of that kind brought to their attention daily.
Secondly, although the tribunal has power to examine and obtain full particulars of the contract of tenancy, its powers are limited either to approving or reducing rent and entering it in a register. Of course, as we have heard this afternoon, the Bill makes provision for sanctions to be imposed, but if we are to hive tribunals with, as I have already indicated, the necessary administrative macnmery, I wonder whether it will not be possible to broaden their terms of reference to include such matters incidental to the relationship of landlord and tenant. The tribunal will be faced mainly with contracts for furnished lettings where the landlord lives in the house and lets part furnished. In many cases the contracts are not the straightforward kind involving a weekly payment for the accommodation provided with no extra charges. The tribunal will and, as local authorities have found, weird and wonderful arrangements which involve separate charges for use of the electric light or the kitchen or cupboards on the landing. These arrangements, coupled with close living associations, lead to much unneighbourly conduct which is distressing to the sufferers but is not within the scope of any local authority to remedy.
For example, the landlord annoys his tenant by forbidding access to the garden or the coal shed, or by pulling out a fuse

and plunging his tenant into darkness. Local authorities are powerless to deal with complaints of this character, but I should think the triounals, sitting in an informal atmosphere and hearing all parties before them, could act in effect as a domestic court for landlords and tenants. This problem will have to be faced sooner or later, and it seems to be an opportune time for experimenting so far as furnished rooms are concerned.
Thirdly, there is a great danger that the Bill will result in many families being called upon to leave furnished rooms. I know that the Minister this afternoon did give a broad indication that this would cover unfurnished rooms as well, but might not there be ways by which a landlord could still so arrange the letting of buildings or houses that there could be an evasion of the method and by which a tribunal could consider the matter fully and give a satisfactory decision?
The question of security of tenure for furnished rooms was raised on the Scottish Measure, and at this late hour I will not go further into the arguments that were put forward. Doubtless the Minister knows them much better than I do. The point really justifies the need for a comprehensive housing Measure. If my fears are justified—and I hope they are not—is the Minister himself satisfied with the accommodation and facilities provided by the public assistance authorties for unfortunate people who are dehoused? We hear very little of this side of the Minister's functions. I hope we shall not have rest centres acting as casual wards. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows of cases in London where rest centres are in fact acting as casual wards, full of a forgotten army of people living in accommodation where the ordinary comforts of family life are impossible.
Fourthly, I trust the Minister will choose the personnel of the tribunal with skill and foresight. They are the machinery for dealing with the evils which the Bill seeks to remedy, and they will, without doubt, be the tribunals for unfurnished houses and rooms when effect is given to the Ridley Report on Rent Control generally. I am glad that the chairman and his associates will be chosen, not because of their legal knowledge of the law of landlord and tenant, but because of their insight into the lives and conditions of the ordinary person, whether landlord or


tenant, who will seek the wise guidance of the tribunal.
So far as their place of meeting is concerned, I trust the Minister in his regulations will insist that the tribunal meets wherever possible at the local town hall or council offices, the place where both landlord and tenant can go in these days for advice on their problems. I feel sure they will have the co-operation of the local authorities. I would be happier, as I have indicated, if we were debating a comprehensive housing Measure, but if this Bill cannot wait until then we ought to give this Measure a Second Reading and a speedy passage in order that the tribunals can be quickly established, working in collaboration with the local authorities to settle grievances which have existed too long without adequate machinery to secure their remedy.

7.48 p.m.

Captain Marples: I think the Government in the course of the next few months will be introducing several Bills having principles with which we on this side of the House will not agree. I think all Members on both sides of the House are agreed that the principle underlying this Bill is an exceedingly sound one, and any observations I may make tonight will be merely to assist, criticise and, I hope, improve the Bill. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) said that this Bill is drafted very loosely and rather incomprehensibly. If he looked at the Building Restrictions (Contraventions) Bill, which was the first Bill to be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, he would have found that it was far worse.
As far as this Bill is concerned, my criticism is that some of the Clauses give the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and his officials too much power without bringing to the notice of the House details of what they are doing. We have, for example, Clause 7, whereby the Minister "may make regulations" and, as previous hon. Members have said, they will not be laid on the Table. It reminds me of when I was in the Army and of the question of the use of Section 40 of the Army Act. Hon. Members will know that a private soldier can be charged under Sections 4 to 44 of the Army Act. All those Sections indicate offences, with the exception of Section 40, under which

you can charge a man when he has committed conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline; in other words it includes anything which is not in the other Sections. When eventually I became a sergeant-major although I had grumbled about it when I was a private soldier—or a "Tommy Atkins." as hon. Gentlemen opposite would say—I thought it was extremely useful. The Minister has done precisely the same thing. When he was on this side of the House he used to object to Ministers taking too much power but he is doing precisely the same thing himself now.
I wish to criticise Clause 9 on a point which has so far not been mentioned. We find from the Bill that the only person who can institute proceedings shall be the local authority. I had always understood that it was a principle of our law—I am not a lawyer and perhaps I should leave this point to the lawyers—that if a person in this country were aggrieved he was always entitled to bring proceedings and get his grievance put right. I may be wrong, but here it seems to me that the only person who can bring an action is the local authority. I do not think that this Clause was in the Scottish Bill, and if it was I still think it is wrong. I still think that an individual—an ordinary man in the street—shouldhave the right to bring an action. The hon. Lady who spoke on this subject said that the local authority would tend to look after the ratepayers rather than the bird of passage. Take the case of the civil servant living in a seaside town. His rent is too high so he goes to the local authority and asks them to institute proceedings. If they say "No" he has no remedy, because he cannot begin proceedings of any sort. I say frankly I think that is wrong.
Another point which no one so far has mentioned relates to the notice to be given to landlords under Clause 2 (1). The tribunals have power to give notice to the landlord or lessor and to ask him to give any information that they may require. The Bill goes on to make a proviso that the notice shall not be less than seven days. The right hon. Gentleman has pinned his faith to the local authorities for his housing programme. I have had a deal of experience, from the landlord's point of view, of local authorities. This morning I looked up some correspondence


with the local authority and I found that, excluding the usual card of acknowledgment, the time that the local authority took to reply to me was usually 21 days. I tell the House quite frankly that I am interested in this Bill, as a landlord of furnished rooms. My staff could not reply to the local authority within seven days at the present moment because they have to deal with P.A.Y.E., the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, the local authority licences, and the Ministry of Fuel and Power for coal and coke. I would ask the Minister to make the period 21 days. I agree that the landlord should not be allowed to delay the proceedings, but in these days we have so many forms to fill up that the Minister ought to give the same chance to landlords as is given to local authorities, and, generally speaking, they take at least 21 days.
The penalty if I do not reply is to be sent to prison for two months or fined £20. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this matter again because it is very important from my point of view. I stand a chance of being fined £20 or being sent to prison for three months under Clause 8 (2). [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] That may please some hon. Members opposite, but I would point out to them that although our numbers on this side are comparatively few, the quality is good—I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would amend that period because he will only increase his majority by one if he does not. I could not reply within seven days.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): Is not the hon. and gallant Member under some misunderstanding? The Bill does not say "reply within seven days"; it says that there is to be a period which is not less than seven days.

Captain Marples: I quite agree, but suppose the tribunal make it seven days. All I say is that you should make the minimum time 21 days, or else make the same rule apply to local authorities or Government Departments and that would mean that they must be fined or sent to prison if they did not reply within the same time. If they were sent to prison we might get some more business done. I would ask the Minister to consider the matter again in the Committee stage.
There are a few points about furniture. The hon. Lady opposite said that the Scottish tribunals took into account the personalities concerned when they were using furniture. I think that is a good principle. I have several furnished tenants. Some are very good but I remember a case I had before the war. I bought myself an extremely nice divan and I let it to a soldier of a Central European Ally. When I came to reclaim the divan this year I am afraid it was in a very parlous state. Many reasons have been put forward why it was so. The international situation is so delicate that I do not think I will tell the House any more about it, except that that divan cost me £20 to put right. The gentleman responsible has now gone back to Central Europe, and I cannot claim.
Another question is the increased rent for services, The Ridley Committee, on which sat the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, made a unanimous recommendation that blocks of flats supplying services should receive priority in going before the tribunal, so far as the increase in rents is concerned. I want to bring an example to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary of a block of 130 flats not very far from this House. The amount of coal consumed there is one ton a day. In 1939 they consumed a type of coal known as Northumberland Washed Singles, which came down by sea from Northumberland. The price in 1939 was 39s. 6d. per ton. The price in 1945 is 62s. 6d. a ton, making an increase of 23s. per ton which is an increase in cost of 23s. per day. We have on the one hand the Minister of Fuel and Power saying: "You will have to pay the increase, "and, on the other hand, we have the Minister of Health saying, "You cannot increase your rent." The coal costs the landlord £400 a year extra, or just over. I ought to tell the House quite frankly that I am the landlord and that I am paying that sum. The average rent in this block of flats, with central heating, constant hot water, refrigerator and linoleum, is 30s. a week. I do not think that is unreasonable, because out of that, rates, Schedule A, full services and everything else have to be paid.
The position at the moment—and I would like some advice from the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to reply—is this: The contract between myself and


my tenants does not covenant for me to supply those services; legally I can stop providing hot water and central heating, but morally I cannot. For five years I have paid over £400 a year extra for coal alone—that amounts to over £2, 000—not counting the increase of costs regarding porters, lifts, and electric light. All I ask is that I shall receive the same treatment as a tenant and be allowed to go before the tribunal and let them fix my rents. I would be delighted if they would. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be just and fair he must give all parties the right to go before a tribunal, and let the tribunal decide what the rents shall be.

Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. and gallant Member will excuse me—is not the remedy for that very simple? Let him increase the rent of his flats from 30s. to 45s. and then the tenants will go before the tribunal.

Captain Marples: I cannot; they are covered by the Rent Restriction Act and I cannot increase the rents like that. The main point is—the hon. Gentleman who dislikes landlords looks at me, but I am innocent enough in all conscience—will the right hon. Gentleman agree that what I have said is reasonable? I only ask to go before the same tribunal, put my case before them and leave it in their hands. The right hon. Gentleman must give that point consideration if he is going to be fair and impartial. If he is not, then, of course, it is another matter altogether, but I think I have made a case. I have only mentioned coal; I have not mentioned the question of paying extra labour, porters, lifts, lighting and all the services that go with these flats at 30s. a week—and in passing I may; tell hon. Members that I am not trying to let the flats. I am able to let them quite well; they are not very far from here. As far as I am concerned as a wicked landlord, I agree with this Bill in principle, but I ask that I as a landlord should be able to do exactly the same as the tenant.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: In making the final speech from the Opposition benches I should like both to congratulate and commiserate with my ex-colleague on the Ridley Committee who has to reply for the Government this evening. I congratulate him because I

know, from my experience on that Committee, that there is no hon. Member on the opposite benches who will put a case on housing better than he will, and to commiserate with him because the Government of which he is now a member appear so completely to have disregarded everything that was done by the Ridley Committee, upon which he and I were, I hope, such prominent members.
The Measure before us tonight is a small one. It touches only one aspect of what is a very great problem, and beyond that, it follows slavishly the Scottish Act. It could have been produced without setting up any rent commission whatsoever, and I tremble to think what sort of a performance would have been put up by the present Minister of Health if he had been in Opposition and a Conservative Government, -with a rent report behind them, had solemnly produced as the only thing they could produce in the first Session of a new Parliament a Measure that dealt merely with one very small phase. After all, the question of fair rent tribunals for unfurnished premises, for example, is of equal importance, and covers a far wider field so far as numbers are concerned. It has anomalies which are quite as wide if not wider than those which exist in regard to furnished premises. I confess that I thought that, when a Commission composed of all parties had come to a unanimous recommendation that fair rent tribunals should be set up to deal with furnished and unfurnished premises alike, it would not have been asking a great deal of the new Minister of Health to try to combine the two in one Bill, instead of producing a very small cherry, with just a hint that, possibly, later on, another more substantial piece of fruit might follow.
Apart from that, I want to refer to another matter which is not within this Bill, a matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) made reference; I mean the law of possession. It is true that on that question the Parliamentary Secretary and myself took different views on the Ridley Committee. When I heard the Minister of Health, in the eloquent speech with which he opened this afternoon, saying that what we wanted was homes for the men who are coming back from the Forces to go to, I could not help being reminded that the majority


report of the Ridley Committee recommended homes as of right for serving men who had let their homes while they were away. This Measure has entirely failed to touch that question in any shape or form. I have listened to a number of speeches by hon. Members opposite who have touched on that question and they have made a point which I imagine the Parliamentary Secretary will make when he replies, that, after all, if you alter the law of possession to give absolute right, subject to certain conditions, to a man who has given up and let his own house during the war, it will mean that in a number of cases you will have tenants who are serving men having to make way for any owner who may not experience as much hardship as they will. I know that point has been made, but another has not been made in this House in regard to possession, which I think should be made in this Debate.
Suppose there are two owner-occupiers living side by side on the outbreak of war. One of them volunteers and goes to serve in the Army, sends his family away and lets his house. The other, for some reason or another, does not serve at all, but remains comfortably in his home. At the end of the war, the owner-occupier who has done nothing is left safe in his own house, even if there is the greatest shortage of housing accommodation in the area in which he lives, whereas the man who has gone out and served, and the woman who has accepted the orders of the Government and has been evacuated with her children, can only go back home by showing that there is greater hardship to them than to the tenant. Between two owner-occupiers, under the law as it stands today, there is a premium against patriotism, and to the advantage of the man who has never served. I suggest that at an early date something should be brought into operation under the Bill to enable an owner-occupier whose move was because of the war to have the opportunity of coming back.
I turn to the Bill itself. I am glad that my right hon. opponent the Minister of Health is now in his seat, because he has disappointed us in this Bill. When he first became Minister, the right hon. Gentleman announced to the world that he was going to be the most unorthodox of Ministers so far as the Ministry of Health was concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has behind him the Ridley

Committee and all that they were able to produce, and most of their recommendations were signed by the hon. Gentleman who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. But instead of showing imagination and using this great opportunity to bring forward a new Measure to tackle the whole question of rent control, he says, as the most timorous Liberal would say, "Well, after all, these things take time; I must produce a first-aid Measure, and perhaps something more will come later on." What would have happened if the right hon. Gentleman had been in Opposition and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon had produced this Measure and had referred to it as first aid? What an outburst there would have been from the right hon. Gentleman. He would have said it was a stop-gap Measure and that there had been a failure to take a great opportunity of tackling a great problem in a big way. Now the right hon. Gentleman produces this mouse of a Bill, a Bill which, as far as it goes, is an advantage on the present law, but it goes a terribly little way.
I differ from some of my hon. Friends on these benches on one thing in regard to this Measure. I signed the unanimous report of the Ridley Committee, which contained a recommendation that there should be some degree of security of tenure for tenants of furnished lettings. I realise the Minister's difficulties. He does not want to dry up the lettings. I believe that any full security of tenure which placed a tenant of furnished premises on the same footing as a tenant of unfurnished premises would dry up a number of lettings, but all those who served on the Ridley Committee felt that some degree of security of tenure would be an advantage. Tenants who are overcharged may feel a certain anxiety about making an appeal. It is all very well to say that the owner will not get any more rent from any other person, and therefore, will not turn out the person who makes an appeal. But owners, like other people, sometimes get a bit irritable. Nobody likes to have his tenant bring him to court and challenge the rent that has to be paid. In many cases an owner would take the decision of the court and do nothing further, but nevertheless, I feel that if I were a tenant and was not quite sure of the temper of my landlord, I should be very


nervous about making an appeal unless I had some small degree of security of tenure. I think the most that is needed in this Measure is that the tribunals should have a power of discretion to give a degree of security of tenure up to a very limited time. The Ridley Committee suggested three months as the outside limit, and I think that is as far as one could reasonably go, although in many cases the period could be shorter. The tribunals would not find it necessary in many cases even to grant a minimum security of tenure. They would be able to judge of the temper between the landlord and the tenant when they came before them, providing, of course, that there are set up the sort of tribunals which we expect, tribunals composed of men of experience who have some knowledge of human nature. I think there is a case for limited security.
I was very surprised by the objection of the Minister of Health to the very moderate proposal that was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon to permit the tribunals to increase rent as well as to stabilise or reduce it on the occasion of the first appeal. What did the Minister say? He said, "It would be too complicated, and we have got to deal with the question of preventing people from having to pay rents that are too high." Would it be so much more complicated if the Measure provided that, if a person applied to the tribunal on the threat of an increase, the tribunal should decide whether that increase was justified or not? If there is not inserted a provision of that kind there will be any number of frivolous appeals. I suggest to the Government that, if they want to strengthen the case for some security of tenure for the tenant, they had better get rid of frivolous appeals, because to grant any form of security of tenure would merely encourage a tenant to appeal on any grounds, and the position, might be worse than it is at present. If, on the other hand, a tenant were faced with the possibility that an appeal might be dismissed as vexatious or that, if he had not got a high rent, the tribunal might increase the rent if they thought the appeal was frivolous, it would cause a great deal more reason to be exercised all round. I hope that on the Committee stage the Government will consider again the question of the

tribunals being able to deal with the whole question of rent, up or down, in the first instance. The suggestion has been made that if the landlord unduly delays, it should be possible for the court to fix the rent at the date of application and not at the date of hearing. That was one of the proposals of the Ridley Committee; it could easily be incorporated in the Bill, and it would do something to hasten up matters.
I cannot help wondering how the Parliamentary Secretary will defend the three ways in which this Measure differs from the proposals of the Ridley Committee, which he and I signed—namely, the question of tenure, fixing the rents both up or down, and, finally, fixing the rent at the date of application. It does appear that in this Measure the whole of the Ridley Report is being swept aside. The Government seem to take the view that rent control is much too big a question to tackle in a big way, and apparently they have decided that, as they must do something, they will take the Scottish Act without bothering to see whether it can be improved upon, so that they may be able to say they have done something. That is not good enough. I suggest that the Minister must go a great deal deeper into rent control. If the Government have listened to the criticisms that have been made, and will continue to listen on the Committee stage—I think all the criticisms tonight have been constructive—I think it will be possible to make this a better Measure than it is.

8.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I think that on the whole the Government have every reason to be satisfied with the reception given to this Bill. Although a goodly number of points have been raised, many of them were of a minor character, and are such as to warrant careful consideration on the Committee stage. I am sure the House would not wish me to spend time on all the points that have been raised, but I assure hon. Members that between now and the Committee stage very careful consideration will be given to them. They have been carefully noted and will receive due attention. As I was a Member of the Ridley Committee, I know a good deal about the difficulties of this particular subject, and also about the urgency of dealing with rent


control generally, and I will be perfectly frank and say that I would like to have seen a much more comprehensive Bill than this brought forward for consideration, but we have been left with a lot of work to do. There is an enormous amount of Business to be brought before this House, and, as a result, not merely is there not the necessary Parliamentary time for dealing with such a Measure—and it would be a very big Measure indeed if we really dealt with all the consolidation Business that will have to be done with nine other Acts and other things that are to be dealt with—but it would take what, again, we have not at our disposal for this purpose—the services of Parliamentary draftsmen in preparing the necessary Bill. Therefore, we have had to take that part of the work which is of a really pressing character, and that is the problem of dealing with furnished lettings.
This business of furnished lettings is, I am certain, in the months ahead of us, going to be a very serious business indeed. We have an increased number of families to deal with, because of the marriages that have taken place during the war, and a very seriously decreased number of houses in which to accommodate them, and, even in the cases where young people may be able to find unfurnished rooms, their difficulty in getting the necessary amount of furnishings to put into them will be such that a great number of them will have to give up that idea in despair. So there is going to be a very greatly increased demand for furnished lettings in this country in the months ahead, and, for that very reason, it is absolutely necessary for us to make some provision for preventing extortion taking place so far as the rents to be charged are concerned.
There is one other point with regard to the wider problem—the point raised in regard to obtaining possession of houses by people who have had to give up the tenancy of the houses which they owned. We gave very careful consideration to this on the Ridley Committee, and my hon. Friend behind me and I did not agree that there should just be an automatic sort of arrangement. We had got to give very careful consideration to the point of view of the existing tenant. It is all very well to talk about returning ex-Servicemen and things of that sort, but I think it might well be, and, as a matter of fact, in a great many cases, it will be, the fact that the existing occupants will be the wife and

children of a Serviceman who would be dispossessed. What we have decided is that the existing arrangements, by which there was an appeal to the court and the court would decide the matter on the question of greater hardship, was really the correct way of dealing with this problem, and our experience was that the courts have been very fair and decent in arriving at decisions in the matter.
With regard to the question of security of tenure, as I have pointed out, the real seriousness of this problem is the great increase in demand that there will be for furnished lettings, but we also have to face the fact that, to the extent to which you gave security of tenure to people in furnished lettings, to that extent did you deter people from willingly taking in people at the present time, and that is a very serious problem for us. As has been pointed out already, one thing that would protect the existing tenant is the fact that, when once the tribunal had decided the rent and that rent had been registered with the local authority, there was no advantage in getting rid of the existing tenant because no additional rent could be got from any subsequent tenant. Secondly, there is this power of requisition, which the local authorities could use in cases where their knowledge was that an injustice was being done to a tenant in furnished premises, who had made application to the tribunal.
I would add this point. It has been suggested during the Debate, that the rent that was decided upon should be a rent that was not attached to the premises, but was fixed for the particular tenant. I want to say that to the extent that you did that, you would take away this very protection there would be for the existing tenant, because there would not be a deterrent on the landlord, and the landlord would be able to think that, by getting rid of him, he could get an increased rent from somebody else coming in. The Bill itself does not carry with it the proposals involved in the Ridley Committee's Report, but, so seriously do we regard this problem, that I undertake quite definitely that the matter shall be looked at very carefully again between now and the Committee stage, and it may be possible, on the Committee stage, for something to be done in order to improve the proposals in the Bill and give some sort of added security to the individual tenants concerned.
The point was also raised why we wanted to set up tribunals for this business at all, and why we could not depend upon the courts actually dealing with this matter. On the Ridley Committee, I think all of us were impressed with the evidence which was given to us by witness after witness of the fact that, if you were going to deal with this rent business adequately and properly, then you had to take it away from the courts and set up tribunals which should deal with it. It may be without reason, though I do not think it is quite true, but in the minds of a great number of the poorer people, there is a great dread of ever having to go to court to get a decision, and that when, to get their grievances decided, it was necessary to go to a police court or magistrate's court, they hesitate very much to do it. We felt that, with tribunals, it will be very different, and that they will be prepared to go to these tribunals, and particularly if they consist of ordinary people. I cannot see that there is any reason for the claim which has been put forward that one individual on these tribunals should belong to the legal profession. This is just a simple, plain, ordinary man's question of saying "Is this a fair rent for these particular premises?" and I do not see that it involves any legal training for it in order to make that decision. If any legal problem were involved, the tribunals would have the opportunity to avail themselves of people whom they could consult, and I think there should be no idea whatever of making it essential that one member of the tribunal should belong to the legal profession.
Other points were raised with regard to the number of the tribunals, and it was suggested that what is to be done here will not be sufficient to meet the need—something like 150 tribunals for the country as a whole. I think it is true to say, however, that the Ridley Committee considered that round about that number would be sufficient not only to deal with furnished lettings, but would be sufficient to deal with the whole problem of the control of rents generally. As I have said, very careful consideration will be given to the other points which have been raised, and the Committee stage will give us opportunity for dealing with them. On the whole I commend this Bill to the House as dealing with a real

social problem, particularly in the bombed and blitzed areas of our great towns, and I hope that, as a result of the Bill, in any amended form which it may reach, we shall be able to give protection to tenants in furnished premises without drying up the source of those furnished premises for which there will be such a demand.

Captain Gammans: When the hon. Gentleman says that the Government will give consideration to the points raised today, doe she mean that they will also give consideration to the arguments that have been put forward that the tribunals should have the power to increase rents?

Mr. Key: I undertook to give consideration to that point, as to all other points, but I am not in a position to make any promise on what will be the result of that consideration.

8.31 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I have listened to most of this Debate with the greatest interest without attempting to speak, and I hoped to hear from the Government a less self-satisfied answer than we have just heard from the Parliamentary Secretary. He opened his speech by saying that he thought the Government had fairly good reason to be satisfied with the reception which this Bill has received in the House. That may or may not be so, but I do not think they will have reason to be satisfied with the reception that this Bill receives in the country, because they have presented us with this very limited Measure on the excuse that they have not the Parliamentary draftsmen or the Parliamentary time to bring in a more comprehensive Measure, which I think the Minister of Health himself admits would be desirable if the time were available.
When that excuse is put forward, I think it relevant to consider the sort of Measures that the Government are offering to this Parliament. They say they have not the time to bring in a comprehensive Measure on rent control, which is of intense interest to the great mass of our people when there is widespread dissatisfaction with the present state of the law. Yet they are offering us purely political Measures like the Bank of England Bill and the Bill to repeal the Trade Union and Trade Disputes Act. Such Measures are introduced for no reason whatsoever, except to gratify a few party politicians upon


their side—Measures of no interest whatsoever for the people of this country, and yet, when we ask them to increase the scope of this Bill so as to clear up the state of the law—which gives little satisfaction in any quarter except to a very few protected tenants who are enjoying conditions to which they are really not entitled at all—[Interruption.] There is profiteering on both sides. There has been profiteering on the side of some tenants as well as upon the side of some landlords, and I am sure that this House would desire to see justice in all quarters. That is the reason why I say that we should have amendment of the law on a very wide scale, so as to secure that justice shall be universal. I think that when we appeal for that, and the Parliamentary Secretary merely replies that the Government have not the time, he is bringing this Government into well-merited contempt.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — FURNISHED HOUSES (RENT CONTROL) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the rent of houses or parts thereof let at a rent which includes payment for the use of furniture or for services, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) such remuneration and travelling and other allowances of members and acting members of any tribunal constituted under the said Act, and such salaries and allowances of the clerk and other officers and servants of any such tribunal, as the Minister of Health, with the consent of the Treasury, may determine; and
(b) such other expenses of any such tribunal as the Treasury may determine.—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Bevan.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Sir William Darling: I want to ask a question, Mr. Beaumont, if I am in Order.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is too late. I have already collected the voices.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

8.36 p.m.

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley(Aberdeen and Kincardine, Western): On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Before the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan) speaks to this Bill, could he or you give some direction to the House? There is in front of us an important Bill affecting the health of Scotland to which, as far as one knows, it is proposed to give a Second Reading in the space of 42½ minutes. Can we be given any indication if it is the intention of the Government to get the Second Reading tonight?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): That is not a point of Order, and it is a matter with which I cannot deal. It is within the competence of the House to decide. Mr. Buchanan.

8.37 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
May I say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it would have been quite easy for the Government to have suspended the Rule tonight? I suppose, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to have the Rule suspended, we can always do it. So far as I am concerned, I am a servant of the House—

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: And of the Government.

Mr. Buchanan: No, I am a servant of the House. At least this can be said for me, that I am a House of Commons man. I thought this Bill was very non-controversial. If the Debate is to be prolonged, those who wish to prolong it must take the course themselves. I have nothing to say either for or against. If they wish to delay it, I cannot stop them; it is for them to decide, not me.
This Bill was introduced in another place and has passed through all its stages there without any Amendment. So far as I have been able to make inquiries, it raises no controversial question. In fact, the only change of any substance which it proposes to make in the law of Scotland is to empower the Secretary of


State to make Regulations for medical control at airports as a precaution against the spread of infection either in this country or in countries abroad. The purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to control the spread of infection at airports and to save our own people at home or abroad. The Minister of Health has that power in England under the Public Health Act, 1936, Section 143, and all that we are seeking to do—which I thought was not a question of great heart burning—was to make Scotland in this respect equivalent to our neighbour south of the Border. Unfortunately we have no such power, as far as I can gather, in any of the Scottish enactments. Before the war there was no international airport in Scotland and the need for a similar power did not, therefore, arise. Modem aviation has opened up new possibilities, and if airports like Prestwick are to develop, there must be provision for proper medical control at them.
The Government have obligations under the International Sanitary Convention for Aerial Navigation, and they must be able to carry out their obligations. Those are the reasons for the introduction of the Bill. We could have introduced a Bill which did no more than amend, in detail, the Scottish Public Health Acts, to cover aircraft, but it would have produced—and here we would have been subject to very serious criticism I think—a bad example of legislation by reference, which everybody dislikes and which would be very difficult for most people to follow. We have thought it desirable to produce a clearer Bill, a more useful Bill, by taking the opportunity to bring up to date the whole code in the Scottish Public Health Acts which deals with the Secretary of State's powers to make Regulations for the prevention of the spread of epidemic, endemic, or infectious disease. These powers are at present to be found in Part IV of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, and they are also found in the Public Health Act, 1904. This latter Act, which relates to dangers to the public health from shipping, applied to the United Kingdom, and was repealed for England and Wales in 1936 by the Public Health Act of that year. The present Bill reproduces, in up-to-date form, the provisions of these previous Acts, now 50 years old. A few provisions, which are obsolete, are to be

dropped. A few minor Amendments are to be made, and, of course, it extends the Regulation-making power to cover aircraft.
The result is that if the House approves, Scottish provisions, in this respect, will be similar to those in the English enactments—and this is desirable where obligations under an international convention are involved—and procedure will be modernised. It would also make a small, though useful, contribution towards the eventual consolidation of the Scottish Public Health enactments. Among the minor changes, I would call attention to Subsection (6) of Clause 1 which proposes that the Secretary of State's Regulations should be laid before Parliament. Under the present law, Regulations of this kind merely have to be published. We have improved it to the extent that Regulations have now to be laid before this House, and it is in accordance with modern practice, and the wishes of this House, that this should be done.
To summarise, the Bill provides for medical control at airports in Scotland, and it consolidates and brings up to date what already exists. It brings these provisions into line with the corresponding provisions for England. The Bill confers no new powers on the Secretary of State, except with regard to making Regulations for the medical control of airborne traffic. No new power is given to us. I took the opportunity, because the matter was raised with me, to check that up, and the words we use in this Bill are the words, without any alteration, as taken from the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. The Bill confers on the Secretary of State no new powers whatever, except in regard to airports, but there it only gives us the powers which the English have had since 1936, and which we think are necessary now. It confers no new power on local authorities. A local authority, as a result of this Bill, gets no direct power at all. I trust, with this explanation of the Bill—a Bill which, in modern life, is desirable and necessary—that this very small, but, I think, rather useful Measure, will be given the same hearty passage through this House as it was given in another place.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I do not think anyone, in any quarter of the House, would object to the Gov-


ernment taking powers, similar to those which they have at present in other respects, for application to aircraft, and that is the main object of the Bill. But I am much afraid that the hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, not entirely accurate when he says that, as the result of the transformation from the old 1897 Act to Clause 1, the legal position has not been materially changed. Let me try to explain it in this way. Looking at this Bill—and it is at this Bill alone we must look—there is nothing in it which limits the general terms of Clause 1 (1, a). Therefore it would be competent under this Bill, as I read it—the Lord Advocate, no doubt, will give us his view either now or later—to deal with all the most vexed questions—venereal disease, vaccination, milk supplies—all the things that have caused, perhaps, more controversy in the past than any other subject which has occupied public attention. I shall be surprised if anybody tells me that, under this Bill, it would not be possible to remodel the whole of the Regulations for venereal disease, and to extend them very materially, to remodel the law about vaccination, and to remodel the law about milk supplies. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will get himself into trouble if he takes power of that kind, because he will be asked to do things, and he cannot say, "I have no power." I do not think he wants to do these things, or to embarrass himself with power to do them, and, therefore, I suggest he should make it clear that he is not taking that power.
He says, quite truly, that the words used are the same words as in the 1897 Act, but they appear in a different context. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the words in the 1897 Act appear in only one part, which is headed "Epidemic Diseases." It is true that the Section goes on to talk of endemic diseases, as a whole. It is difficult to say what that Act means, but, giving it the best attention I can, I am fairly sure that any Regulation made under the existing Act to deal with the wide questions I have just referred to, would be attacked, and probably attacked successfully, as ultra vires of the rule-making authority. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman is doing is to transfer a situation, where it will probably be ultra vires to make these regulations, into a situation where it would be plainly intra vires to do so.

Mr. Gallacher: Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman not speak Scottish when this is a Scottish Debate?

Mr. Reid: I am trying to be short, and it so happens that it is easier to express in legal phraseology, shortly, than it is to express these things in popular phraseology. Had I a few more minutes to spare, I should be only too glad to use words with a more popular appeal. I cannot ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate to express his view here and now on the question; it would not be fair to do so. I think I am right in saying that the Government do not want to embarrass themselves with these powers, and, therefore, if they will give us an undertaking to make certain on the Committee stage that they are not embarrassing themselves in that way, we shall certainly not seek to hold up the passage of this Bill, because its main object is a good object.
If by chance we cannot get that, and there is any difficulty about it, then, I am afraid, we cannot agree to a Second Reading this evening. I hope that we can get an assurance on the lines which I have indicated, namely, that it will be made quite clear in the Committee stage that there is no intention to have such wide powers as would enable the Government to do the things to which I have referred.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: There is one question which I would like to put to the Minister concerning the penalty for a first offence of £100, and, for a continuance of an offence against the regulations, of £50 a day. Will any consideration be given, when the regulations are drawn up, to those organisations or people who have certain conscientious objections to registering? It would be undesirable to have a case running on at a cost of £50 a day, as we have had in connection with other matters.

8.52 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. G. R. Thomson): With regard to the point raised by my right hon. Friend, I think that I can safely say that we do not want to make any innovation in the law. The situation has not changed since 1897, so far as the wording is concerned, and it is not our


desire to utilise this new Bill to extend the scope of the 1897 Act. We are perfectly prepared to keep in view in the Committee stage that no advance is made on the position, as laid down.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to this slight extension of what he has suggested: that he should make it clear, whatever the 1897 Act says—because there may be doubt about what it means—that he will now exclude from the powers under this Bill, the power to do the kind of thing to which I have referred?

The Lord Advocate: It may be fairly difficult to limit the scope of this new Bill in such a way, especially when one keeps in view that the previous Act has been functioning successfully for nearly 50 years, without any of those fears being realised.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay: Can we be sure that there is no alteration in the general law? I would like to know this for my own information Clause 1 (3) states:

"Regulations made under this section shall specify the authorities, whether local authorities or port local authorities, by whom they are to be enforced and executed, and may also provide for their enforcement and execution by officers of customs and excise and officers and men employed in the coastguard:
Provided that nothing in such regulations will authorise any such authority, officer, or person to institute proceedings for an offence against the regulations.
Who is to institute the proceedings? Is that to be the sole prerogative of the Secretary of State? What is done under the Act of 1897? Do I take it that there is no question of giving additional duties under this short Bill. I would like an assurance from the Lord Advocate, on the enforcement of the Measure, as to who is the person authorised to take decision—the port medical officer, the local authority or the Secretary of State.

Mr. Buchanan: The person to take action is the competent person who takes action in almost every case in Scotland, the procurator fiscal. As I understand the position, it will be for the fiscal to take the necessary action against anyone who breaks the law.

Mr. McKinlay: I want to make sure that there are no additional duties put on the customs and excise men under this Bill.

Mr. Buchanan: So far as I understand it, the fiscal would take the necessary action on the advice of the local authority who administer the regulations.

8.57 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I am rather concerned at the position at which we have arrived. To my mind, it is perfectly clear that under Clause 1 the Secretary of State can make regulations of any kind whatsoever. In arriving at that conclusion, I went to the trouble to find out from the dictionary exactly the meaning of the words "epidemic" and "endemic." The latter word I find is "Anything that is regularly common among the people." In that case any disease that is "regularly common among the people" can be included. The Lord Advocate has not denied that these powers would be possible under this Clause as it stands. Therefore, I feel we must have an undertaking from him that he will find words before the Committee stage which will limit the powers which are given under this Clause 1. If we can have that definite assurance the Bill will go through its Second Reading now; otherwise, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has said, we shall have to oppose it. I do not think anyone who looks at that Clause can possibly deny what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, and in reading the Act of 1897, in particular Clause 79, one sees the limitations which are there imposed, and although the words which appear in this Bill are the very words which appear in Section 78 of the Act of 1897 I suggest that those are limited. Unless, therefore, we can have some definite assurance or some definite denial of what we have suggested I am afraid we must oppose the Second Reading.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: If I may again have the leave of the House to speak, may I say to my hon. Friend that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to oppose the Bill I do not intend to stop him from doing so. It is within his rights. All I want to say is what I have said already, that we have no intention, either by deed or word, of making this Bill go one iota


further than the 1897 Act went. That is as clear as I can make it. I am not prepared, standing here, to give him a promise to exclude this or that, but I have stated what is our intention, and if words can be found which will make clear what is meant here we will insert them; but I want my words to be taken seriously and I am not prepared to give any undertaking in such a fashion without thoroughly examining it. I want the 1897 power. I do not want us in the treatment of this matter to be worse off than our friends South of the Border. The Government have no intention of asking for anything more in this Bill.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I think I see a possible way out of the difficulty. If the Government can find suitable limiting words then I have no doubt they will put them in, but supposing they cannot find suitable words, will they agree that until final codification takes place we should revert to the existing position under the 1897 Act and do what I agree would not be altogether desirable, make this a one Clause Bill simply adapting the existing powers to the aircraft problem? It is a very bad thing to codify and not to know what your codification is. Will the Government do one or other of two things, cither find proper words for this or, if they cannot do so, revert to the 1897 position, unsatisfactory though it may be, until we can put things on a proper basis?

Mr. Buchanan: Again, if I may have the leave of the House to speak, I would say that I am doing my best. So far as I am concerned the position is that I will try to find the requisite words. As to the second point, I am not promising to withdraw. I am as ready as any man to try to make the position dear, and that is as far as anybody can reasonably be asked to go and I cannot be pressed to go any further.

9.4 p.m.

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: I find this position is most unsatisfactory. We on this side of the House have nothing but good will for a Scottish Bill which limits the intention to the regulation of people landing by aeroplane in Scotland. We all want to see that position made as safe as we can, because we do not want diseases brought here. There are in paragraph (a) of Clause 1 (1) very much

wider powers than the Government are asking for. The position has been made perfectly clear and all that we on this side of the House ask is that we should be given some assurance that this Clause shall be limited. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to find words to alter paragraph (a) of Clause 1 (1) to meet our point. If on the Committee stage they can meet that point I am certain that we shall all agree with them, but I ask the Under-Secretary to believe that there is nothing but good will on this side of the House for what he has asked, that is to say, a small Measure to regulate the position of people arriving by air in Scottish airports. When he says that he and the Lord Advocate do not intend to use those powers in a wider way we are bound to point to the wording of the Bill, which is perfectly clear: Power is to be taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland
with a view to the treatment of persons affected with any epidemic, endemic or infectious disease.
If this is taken literally, those powers ought to be limited. That is the only point which I and other hon. Friends on this side of the House want to make and I hope that, even at this late stage, it may be possible for the Under-Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate to give the assurance asked for by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid).

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT (LOCAL RESIDENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Blenkinsop.]

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Daggar: The painful recollection of what took place in my division between the two wars, what is now happening, and my anxiety for the future of the people I represent are the chief reasons for raising this matter on the Adjournment this evening. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will appreciate those three reasons when I remind him that in my division, from 1931 to 1938—a period of eight years—4, 648 persons were placed in employment in other districts by the em-


ployment exchanges. In addition, during that period, over 7, 000 of my constituents left the division to take up employment which they secured themselves. In a period of eight years no fewer than 11,713 persons were compelled to migrate to other parts of the country because there was no employment in the place of their birth. What was true of my constituency was also true of the whole of South Wales and Monmouthshire. We lost one-seventh of the population of South Wales and Monmouthshire. Unless something is done now there will be a repetition of that tragedy. In the case of unemployment, men and women who reside in areas where no new industries have come and where there are not sufficient factories to absorb them in employment the slogan "Jobs for all" will become a political lie, unless action is taken at once by the Minister of Labour and the appropriate Departments.
The tragedy to which I refer has already commenced and this is the evidence I propose to submit for consideration by the Ministry of Labour. I have in part of my Division the Newbridge and District Unemployment association and I am informed by the Secretary of that organisation that the men living within the Newbridge area are outside certain defined areas of the following factories. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will be familiar with these factories and also with the areas in which they are situated. There are the Northern Aluminium Company, Rogerstone, the De Haviland Forge, Rogerstone, the new Nylon factory at Pontypool, and a new factory at Pontlanfraith, Blackwood. All those factories are absolutely accessible to every individual in my constituency. I am informed that in fact there are cases of men being offered jobs at this factory, and then being refused work, owing to the fact that they live in the Newbridge district. I have here a copy of a letter that was sent in reply to an application for employment at what is known as the Northern Aluminium Company which is situated in Rogerstone. It is dated 28th August:
"DEAR SIR,
Our immediate vacancies are being filled from the labour available near to the works. It may be that at a later date we shall have to go further afield, in which case you would be informed by the Ministry of Labour.

The same company wrote another letter dated 16th of last month:
The position up to the moment has been that the Ministry of Labour at Newport and Risca which are nearest to the works have been able to supply our labour requirements, due to considerable redundancy in other works in the district. It may be that later we shall have to go further afield in which case it is highly probable that we should ask Newbridge to submit applicants.
The person responsible for soliciting that reply then wrote to the Regional Council at Cardiff, which is the Control Office, and he was informed that it was regretted that the extension of the demands for labour was no necessity for extending the area of recruitment beyond the immediate neighbourhood of the respective factories.
It is not necessary to point out that the problem has arisen largely because of the discharges from the Royal Ordnance factory situated in Glascoed and Pontlanfraith. As a result two distinct issues arise. The first is that persons employed at the Glascoed factory should have, regardless of where they reside, an equal opportunity of sharing the employment available at that factory. In other words, those living outside the area in which the factory is situated, should not be placed at a disadvantage in view of the fact that it is national property. It is a national factory and therefore the employment available should not be confined to the people who happen to be living in the area in which the factory exists. The second point is what are the proposals of the Minister regarding existing unemployment at Newbridge. At present it is in excess of 1, 000, and it is an area where future development will not permit of their absorption into industry. I have already read the reply of the Cardiff Regional Office on these matters. It is identical with the replies I received from the Minister himself on 11th October. When I raised the Question here I was informed by the Minister:
The general rule applies here, as in all other areas, that when vacancies are notified suitable applicants for work on the register of the local officer are considered for submission in the first place, but if a vacancy cannot be filled in this way it is circulated over a wider area.
I then asked the Minister if he did not consider that men who lived outside that area in which the factory was situated should be at a considerable disadvantage. I was told:


It is an advantage to the person residing in an area to get a job in that area and a disadvantage to the man living miles away to bring him from his home to another job."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 402.]
During the period of the war men whom I know have travelled a much greater distance than they would have had to travel in the event of their being employed at either of the factories to which I have referred. I then put another Question and had this reply:
There are comprehensive and flexible arrangements for information about the vacancies notified at one exchange which cannot readily be filled to be brought to the notice of other exchanges either locally or over a wider area, including, where appropriate, the country as a whole.
What amazes me is this part of the reply:
As regards the last part of the Question, the Employment Exchanges have many demands for labour at present which cannot be filled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 910.]

That is a remarkable statement in view of the fact that the Minister himself must know that there are at least 1, 000 unemployed in one part of my division. I conclude by putting two definite and clear questions—

It being a Quarter-past Nine o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Snow."]

Mr. Daggar: Can I have an undertaking that the retention of the services of the persons at the Glascoed factory will be on the principle of equity between those who reside outside the area in which the factory is situated and those residing within that area. My second question is, What provision is to be made for unemployed persons living in areas where new industries being established will not prove adequate to absorb those unemployed persons, if they have to await, before being employed, the absorption of all the surplus labour in those areas where new industries have been established? It is obvious that in my division there will be a pool of unemployment that will never be drained, and no attempt will be made to drain it unless there is a change in the arrangements that now exist that the men within the area where factories

exist must first of all be absorbed, and if any more are required there may be an opportunity for the men in my division to secure employment. Unless that practice is varied there will be a pool of unemployment in my area, because there will be no factories established to absorb them or drain the pool. In other words in precisely the same manner as between the two wars the men will either have to migrate or be compelled to live on the miserable 24s. a week unemployment insurance benefit. I want some assurance that my men will receive as much consideration as the men in other districts where new factories will be established.

9.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I am sure the House will have every sympathy with the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar). As he has rightly said, Abertillery has had a very sad and bitter experience. One has only to go there to see the devastation that has been caused in that area by unbridled and uncontrolled private exploitation of its resources; and Abertillery and that valley has suffered between the two wars perhaps more than any other part of the country. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery that as one who was born in the community, I have the deepest sympathy with his point of view. But this problem is one that is not confined to Abertillery. It is spread through all of what we call the development areas today. But tonight I am not asked to reply in this Debate on the general question. In any case I would be the wrong person to reply, as it is not directly the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour. 
My hon. Friend has put two questions, and I hope to satisfy him on both. On the question of the redundancy at the Glascoed Factory, he can be assured that up to the present the people who live outside the area and who work at Glascoed is getting equal treatment with those who live within the area of the Glascoed Factory. An analysis of the present employment at Glascoed will show that the Western Valley men and women have not been penalized because they live in the Western Valley, and on that point I do not think after an examination of the facts that there can be any real and substantial complaint.
Now I come to the second point with regard to that factory. At some time there will be fresh recruitment for that factory after its conversion has been completed and when new work has been put in hand. Again, I want to give my hon. Friend this undertaking, that in the recruitment of new labour for the Glascoed Factory the Abertillery Valley will have its fair share. They will not be excluded by the old boundary arrangement that did apply in that area. I am hoping with regard to Glascoed that the apprehensions of my hon. Friend will be completely dissipated by the facts that will arise. I will now pass to the next point with regard to the position of the unemployed who live in the Newbridge area. My hon. Friend has referred to, I think, three letters—two from the Northern Aluminium Company who have a factory at Rogerstone and one from the Regional Controller of the Ministry of Labour at Cardiff.
Those three letters did indicate the state of affairs that existed and that do exist up to now. Men have been prevented from going to those factories because there were unemployed persons who lived nearer to the factories than the men at Newbridge. We have to face this position. The area which my hon. Friend has the honour to represent in this House, because of topographical and geological considerations, will have difficulty in attracting new factories, and it may well be that the new factories and new employment for the community situated in that valley will have to be placed either at the top end of the valley or lower down at the bottom end.
I am afraid that is going to be the only way in which we can provide full employment for the people in that narrow valley. To put it in local terms, in my view, the area at the top end of the valley—Nantyglo and Blaina—and lower down the valley below Newbridge, are the areas with ample sites and with certain geological safeguards—my hon. Friend will know what I mean—which will enable industrial development to take place, and if the present boundary arrangements of the Ministry of Labour apply, the men living in Abertillery will not be entitled to go to those factories until the local employment at Newbridge, Blaina or

Nantyglo has been absorbed. It means that in that small area we will get the complete collapse of a community—one of the best communities in this country. The Ministry of Labour recognise that problem, and instructions will be issued shortly to the exchange managers in that area that the area must be treated as a whole and that these men to whom my hon. Friend has referred in this community in Abertillery and Newbridge shall have the right to be submitted for vacancies which occur either at Roger-stone at the Northern Aluminium Company, or at the de Haviland Company. They will also take part in the recruitment for the Nylon factory at Pontypool and also for the new standard factory at Pontllanfraith. That, in my view, meets my hon. Friend's request in full. Both questions he has put have been answered most completely.
But that does not end the problem, as he will realise. As my hon. Friend probably knows, a new factory is to be built at Blaina at which it is hoped 1, 000 workers will be employed by the Brims-down Rubber Company. Recruitment for that factory will not be limited to Blaina. Abertillery will take its share. At Newbridge two factories are to be erected. It is true that they are not very large. Then again, I should mention the Nylon plant at Pontypool and the Lucas factory at Cwmbran.
Those factories will provide opportunities for the men living in the Western Valley, but—and my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade associates himself with me in saying this—they will not be adequate to provide full employment for the manpower in that valley. Further steps will be necessary. I can assure my hon. Friend that this problem is giving us a headache, but both the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour will pay close attention to it with a view to trying to provide in that valley ample opportunities for that community to maintain itself in existence. That is the answer to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes past Nine o'Clock.